{
  "id": 2639204,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LUTHER A. DURFLINGER, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Durflinger",
  "decision_date": "1976-09-30",
  "docket_number": "No. 75-221",
  "first_page": "174",
  "last_page": "175",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "42 Ill. App. 3d 174"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "316 N.E.2d 773",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "775"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "58 Ill. 2d 57",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2953999
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "61"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/58/0057-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "329 N.E.2d 294",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "28 Ill. App. 3d 717",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5408727
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/28/0717-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 224,
    "char_count": 2909,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.854,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.087085966315723e-08,
      "percentile": 0.37766950891731527
    },
    "sha256": "fb5983457fbdb26c2eca9003aa4060acb44ac802470e531cb1b093dfbccf87e2",
    "simhash": "1:b92ccdf9a0698c03",
    "word_count": 496
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:00:19.600233+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. LUTHER A. DURFLINGER, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE BARRY\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant was charged by complaint with driving while intoxicated in violation of section 6 \u2014 303 of the Illinois Vehicle Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 95/2, par. 6 \u2014 303). On May 5,1975, he appeared pro se and was convicted and sentenced upon his plea of guilty. Complaint is made on appeal that the record fails to show (a) that defendant knowingly waived his right to counsel before entering his plea, and (b) that any transcript was made as required by Supreme Court Rule 401 (c) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 110A, par. 401(c)).\nSince the plea was entered prior to the effective date of Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 110A, par. 604(d)), we accept jurisdiction of this appeal. While Supreme Court Rule 401(c) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 110A, par. 401(c)) requires, as defendant contends, that a verbatim transcript be made of proceedings wherein an accused is permitted to waive counsel, and Rule 402(e) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 110A, par. 402(e)) requires the same verbatim record in respect to accepting pleas of guilty, the failure to make and supply such verbatim transcripts does not automatically require a reversal of the conviction. (People v. Adams, 28 Ill. App. 3d 717, 329 N.E.2d 294 (1st Dist. 1975).) Supreme Court Rule 612(c) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 110A, par. 612(c)), provides that where no verbatim transcript is available, the procedures of Rule 323(c) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 110A, par. 323(c)) must be followed.\nNo attempt has been made by defendant to provide a bystander\u2019s report of proceedings to this court, and no claim is made that defendant did not in fact knowingly waive his right to counsel before entering his plea. Defendant also makes no contention that the court in fact neglected to comply with the requirements of Rule 401(a) or 402(a) through (d). The docket entries supplied as the only record on appeal recites full compliance with the requirements of these rules of admonition, and that \u201c[defendant advises the Court that he understands his rights and desires to withdraw [his] plea of not guilty and enter a plea of guilty.\u201d No claim is made that defendant did not understand his right to counsel, and the docket recitals indicate otherwise. \u201cIt is not the policy of this court to reverse a judgment of conviction merely because error was committed unless it appears that real justice has been denied * * See People v. Dudley, 58 Ill. 2d 57, 61, 316 N.E.2d 773, 775 (1974).\nThe judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nALLOY, P. J., and STENGEL, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE BARRY"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert Agostinelli, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.",
      "Ronald E. Boyer, State\u2019s Attorney, of Watseka, for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LUTHER A. DURFLINGER, Defendant-Appellant.\nThird District\nNo. 75-221\nOpinion filed September 30, 1976.\nRobert Agostinelli, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.\nRonald E. Boyer, State\u2019s Attorney, of Watseka, for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0174-01",
  "first_page_order": 204,
  "last_page_order": 205
}