{
  "id": 2910268,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bill J. Hall, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Hall",
  "decision_date": "1972-03-08",
  "docket_number": "No. 56190",
  "first_page": "681",
  "last_page": "683",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "4 Ill. App. 3d 681"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "386 U.S. 738",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6182629
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/386/0738-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 275,
    "char_count": 5013,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.765,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08563221253439872
    },
    "sha256": "027cd310b22c4e65e89fe89e0b8c13b483322cdcfab3a7a422545b4762663bdf",
    "simhash": "1:fa25f60ac76b2ffe",
    "word_count": 902
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:04:19.595106+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. Bill J. Hall, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE ADESKO\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nOn January 19, 1971, defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of murder and was sentenced to the penitentiary for concurrent terms of twenty-five to fifty years. On March 3, 1971, he filed a notice of appeal and the Public Defender was appointed as his counsel.\nThe Public Defender has filed a motion to withdraw on the basis that there is no merit to the appeal. Pursuant to Anders o. California (1967), 386 U.S. 738, the Public Defender has furnished this court with a brief in support of the petition to withdraw and a transcript of the proceedings. Notice of the motion to withdraw and copies of the petition to withdraw and brief were mailed to the defendant on October 20, 1971. Defendant did not respond.\nThe brief states that the only basis for appeal would be whether the court fully admonished the defendant as to the significance and consequences of his change of plea from not guilty to guilty. A review of the testimony at that time shows:\n\u201cDEFENSE ATTORNEY: May it please the court, at this time we have concluded our conference with the State and we have discussed this matter with the defendant, and we would like at this time to have changed the plea hereto entered from not guilty to a plea of guilty.\nTHE COURT: The defendant wishes to withdraw his plea of not guilty and enter a plea of guilty, is that correct?\nDEFENSE ATTORNEY: That is right, Your Honor.\nTHE COURT: Mr. HaU, do you understand that your lawyer is telling the Court now\u2014\nTHE DEFENDANT: Yes.\nTHE COURT: [continuing] \u2014 your lawyer is indicating to the Court that you wish at this time to withdraw a plea of not guilty which you had entered, to Indictment 70-384, which charges you with the murder of Remice Hall, on November 25, and with the murder of Wanda Ga\u00f1 Harcrow on November 25, and to enter a plea of guilty on that particular indictment, is that correct?\nTHE DEFENDANT: Yes.\nTHE COURT: Now, you understand, do you not, that by pleading gu\u00fcty to this indictment that you are in fact admitting the charges contained in that indictment and you are saying in effect, yes, I have done those things and I have committed those acts with which they charge me?\nDo you understand that?\nTHE DEFENDANT: Yes.\nTHE COURT: AH right, Mr. Hall, I asked you earlier and I am going to ask you again, do you understand that by pleading guilty to this indictment that you are in fact admitting the charges contained in the indictment, and admitting the facts as recited to the Court by the State\u2019s Attorney just now?\nYou wiU have to speak up. I don\u2019t think the court reporter can hear you.\nTHE DEFENDANT: Yes.\nTHE COURT: If I can oversimplify this thing, I suppose what we are reaHy saying, is it not, that you are saying, no, I don\u2019t want a jury to come in, no, I don\u2019t want a trial, no, I don\u2019t want the witnesses to come in, I am admitting these charges, I am admitting these facts as the State\u2019s Attorney recited to the Court? Is that the position you find yourself in?\nTHE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.\nTHE COURT: Now, do you understand, do you not, that you don\u2019t have to change your plea, you can continue to plead not guilty, you don\u2019t have to plead guilty in this case, you know that?\nTHE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.\nTHE COURT: And this plea of guilty that you are entering now is a voluntary one on your part? Is this something you want to do?\nTHE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.\nTHE COURT: There has been no force or no pressure no promises made, other than the fact that whatever may have resulted from the conference that your counsel indicated he had engaged in prior to this particular hearing now?\nTHE DEFENDANT: Yes.\nTHE COURT: It is a voluntary thing, this is what you wish to do? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.\nTHE COURT: Now, before accepting your plea I must advise you that the penalty which the statute provides for this charge of murder, on each of the charges the statute provides that you may be sentenced to the penitentiary for a minimum of fourteen years up to life, any number of years in between those two figures, and, indeed, the statute also provides that the capital punishment of death may also be provided for a charge of murder.\nDo you understand that?\nSo it could be as much as death, or any number of years in the penitentiary not less than fourteen, or any number of years beyond that up to fife, or any number of years in between those two figures? Do you understand that?\nTHE DEFENDANT: Yes.\u201d\nThe record in this case shows that the defendant was fully informed of his rights and the consequences of his guilty plea, and that he persisted in that plea. We, therefore, conclude that the defendant\u2019s plea was properly accepted by the trial court.\nWe find that an appeal would be wholly frivolous, and therefore, the motion of the Public Defender is allowed and judgment is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nDIERINGER, P. J., and BURMAN, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE ADESKO"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bill J. Hall, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 56190;\nFirst District\nMarch 8, 1972."
  },
  "file_name": "0681-01",
  "first_page_order": 701,
  "last_page_order": 703
}