{
  "id": 2632710,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JULIUS BUCKNER, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Buckner",
  "decision_date": "1976-02-25",
  "docket_number": "No. 75-83",
  "first_page": "116",
  "last_page": "118",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "36 Ill. App. 3d 116"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "332 N.E.2d 28",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "29 Ill. App. 3d 1088",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2497642
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/29/1088-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "312 N.E.2d 648",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "20 Ill. App. 3d 131",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5345198
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/20/0131-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "312 N.E.2d 644",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "20 Ill. App. 3d 134",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5349220
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/20/0134-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "341 N.E.2d 386",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "34 Ill. App. 3d 295",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 1
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 336,
    "char_count": 5656,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.737,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.317852702137001e-08,
      "percentile": 0.43695713533877845
    },
    "sha256": "45bef3fcaf63e194f9fc8db6deda1b5ddb8a6f98c01f79d0feadaa0ad9fc2e8a",
    "simhash": "1:a8085d9c73db3f86",
    "word_count": 942
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:55:53.941211+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JULIUS BUCKNER, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE GEORGE J. MORAN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis is an appeal from a judgment of conviction of two charges of theft, entered by the Circuit Court of Bond County following defendant\u2019s plea of guilty.\nDefendant argues that he was not properly informed of his right to counsel at the guilty plea hearing or at the sentencing hearing. We have reviewed the transcript and conclude that defendant was adequately advised concerning his right to counsel at the time the pleas were entered. With regard to Cause No. 74-CM-153, the court stated that, if a plea of not guilty were entered, \u201cyou would have the right to * * * employ an attorney of your choice, if indigent, to request the Court to appoint you counsel and the Court would so appoint.\u201d Furthermore, the court stated: \u201c[Y]ou might at that time ask for continuance to employ an attorney of your choice or at that time you might request the Court to consider appointment of counsel for each of you as indigent persons.\u201d Defendant responded he understood his rights and then entered a plea of guilty. An almost identical admonition and response was present in Cause No. 74-CM-154, including the statement: \u201cYou have a right to have an attorney present at all stages of these proceedings * *\nThese admonitions were sufficient to comply with Rule 401(a).\nHowever, with regard to the sentencing hearing, which took place immediately following the pleas of guilty, the record does not disclose that defendant was advised that he had a right to an attorney. We have previously held that where the record fails to demonstrate that defendant was advised of his right to counsel at tire sentencing hearing, the sentence must be set aside. (People v. Gillen, 20 Ill. App. 3d 134, 312 N.E.2d 644 (1974) ; People v. Miles, 20 Ill. App. 3d 131, 312 N.E.2d 648 (1974).) Appellee cites People v. McCaffrey, 29 Ill. App. 3d 1088, 332 N.E.2d 28 (1975) , and urges this court to reject its earlier holdings. However, this court reaffirms its position in Miles and Gillen. Furthermore, this case demonstrates the need for an adequate admonition at the sentencing hearing. The court did not consider probation, because no application had been made. Then too, defendant raised some questions about the sentence which the State\u2019s attorney had recommended. An adequate admonition may have resulted in appointment of counsel and effective presentation of defendant\u2019s position.\nFor the foregoing reasons, defendant\u2019s convictions of theft are affirmed, and this case is remanded for resentencing at which defendant is to be offered the assistance of counsel.\nAffirmed and remanded with directions.\nCARTER, J., concurs.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE GEORGE J. MORAN"
      },
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE JONES,\ndissenting:\nI respectfully dissent.\nJust a scant month ago, on January 20, 1976, another panel of judges of this court filed an opinion in the case of People v. Barringer, 34 Ill. App. 3d 295, 341 N.E.2d 386 (1976), in which it was held that where a sentencing hearing immediately follows a guilty plea it is unnecessary to again advise defendant of his right to be represented by an attorney at that sentencing hearing.\nThe majority opinion is squarely contradictory to Barringer and makes no reference to Barringer although the author of the majority opinion was a member of the panel that decided Barringer.\nThis case is in no way dissimilar from Barringer. Both are negotiated pleas of guilty in which there was a knowing waiver of counsel during the guilty plea proceeding which was followed immediately and without interruption by the sentencing hearing.\nAs part of the guilty plea proceeding defendant Buckner was advised as follows regarding his rights to counsel, and I quote:\n\"THE COURT: You have a right to have an attorney present at all stages of this proceedings or, in the alternative, if an indigent person, to request the Court to appoint you counsel and if found to be an indigent the Court would appoint you counsel. [Emphasis added.]\n# # #\nAgain, this is the third or fourth-time we have gone through this this afternoon, but again I ask you, do you have any questions about the nature of the charge, the possible maximum sentence or your legal and constitutional rights, * * * ?\nDEFENDANT BUCKNER: No, sir.\n. # # #\nTHE COURT: In a moment, I will ask each of you how you plead. You might respond by a plea of guilty or in the alternative to a plea of not guilty or at that time request a continuance for the purpose of employing an attorney of your choice or in the alternative to ask the Court to appoint you counsel. Do you understand that, # * * ?\nDEFENDANT BUCKNER: Yes, sir.\n# # #\nTHE COURT: And Mr. Buckner, do you also understand that by yo.ur plea of guilty that you\u2019re telling me that you wish to waive or give up your right to trial by jury and your right to an attorney?\nDEFENDANT BUCKNER: Yes, sir.\nTHE COURT: Is that your desire?\nDEFENDANT BUCKNER: Yes, sir.\u201d\nIn the face of these extensive admonishments of tire right to counsel it cannot seriously be contended that the defendant did not understand his rights to counsel, either retained or appointed, at all stages of the proceeding.\nI believe Barringer to be the correct result and I would adhere to it.",
        "type": "dissent",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE JONES,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Stephen P. Hurley and Daniel M. Kirwan, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Mt. Vernon, and Herbert Jung, Law Student, for appellant.",
      "Douglas Marti, State\u2019s Attorney, of Greenville (Bruce D. Irish and Rolf F. Ehrmann, both of Illinois State\u2019s Attorneys Association, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JULIUS BUCKNER, Defendant-Appellant.\nFifth District\nNo. 75-83\nOpinion filed February 25, 1976.\nJONES, J., dissenting.\nStephen P. Hurley and Daniel M. Kirwan, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Mt. Vernon, and Herbert Jung, Law Student, for appellant.\nDouglas Marti, State\u2019s Attorney, of Greenville (Bruce D. Irish and Rolf F. Ehrmann, both of Illinois State\u2019s Attorneys Association, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0116-01",
  "first_page_order": 142,
  "last_page_order": 144
}