{ "id": 5643215, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSEPH CYBURT, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Cyburt", "decision_date": "1977-06-30", "docket_number": "No. 76-1231", "first_page": "414", "last_page": "418", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "50 Ill. App. 3d 414" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "363 N.E.2d 838", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "66 Ill. 2d 551", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5463653 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/66/0551-01" ] }, { "cite": "291 N.E.2d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "53 Ill. 2d 101", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2926001 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "103" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/53/0101-01" ] }, { "cite": "341 N.E.2d 4", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "34 Ill. App. 3d 894", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2963726 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "897" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/34/0894-01" ] }, { "cite": "304 N.E.2d 630", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "55 Ill. 2d 577", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2937034 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "582" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/55/0577-01" ] }, { "cite": "342 N.E.2d 34", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "62 Ill. 2d 329", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2972015 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "334" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/62/0329-01" ] }, { "cite": "280 N.E.2d 433", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "51 Ill. 2d 39", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5391361 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "45" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/51/0039-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 506, "char_count": 8854, "ocr_confidence": 0.889, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.302742357176923e-08, "percentile": 0.4796762282279778 }, "sha256": "80f4f1093b95e64c96d9f722680fe309b323b8f38ef719f6c883bcfb450979b9", "simhash": "1:4dad1195d7f5ec13", "word_count": 1406 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:01:05.304449+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. JOSEPH CYBURT, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE DIERINGER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant, Joseph Cyburt, entered negotiated guilty pleas to several indictments involving sex-related offenses, and he was sentenced in accord with the terms of the plea agreement. He thereafter sought relief pursuant to the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 38, par. 122\u20141 et seq.). The amended post-conviction petition was dismissed without an evidentiary hearing and he appeals. Defendant argues (1) that he pleaded guilty only to gain immediate psychiatric treatment; (2) that a bona fide doubt existed as to his competency to plead guilty, thereby necessitating an evidentiary hearing on this matter; (3) that a more stringent standard of proof is required for one who pleads guilty than is necessary to determine fitness for trial; and (4) that multiple convictions are improper.\nThe record shows defendant was charged by two indictments. On June 28, 1973, he pleaded guilty to aggravated kidnapping and indecent liberties with a child as alleged in Indictment 73 \u2014 635 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, pars. 10\u20142 and 11\u20144) and received the recommended sentences of 15 to 40 years and 10 to 20 years respectively. In Indictment 73 \u2014 996, which involved a separate incident, defendant pleaded guilty to rape, deviate sexual assault and incest (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, pars. 11\u20141, 11\u20143 and 11\u201411). He was sentenced in accord with the State\u2019s recommendation to respective terms of 15 to 40 years, 4 to 14 years and 3 to 10 years. All sentences were to be served concurrently. No direct appeal was taken from these judgments.\nThe amended post-conviction petition alleged the guilty plea proceedings showed defendant was acting in a bizarre manner, that he was taking antidepressant medication at the time, that he pleaded guilty because he was mistaken that this course was the only method to obtain psychiatric treatment, and that a bona fide doubt existed regarding his competency to plead guilty. The petition, and defendant\u2019s affidavit in support thereof, further alleged defendant\u2019s psychiatric history and his claim that the day following entry of the plea he attempted suicide by slashing his wrists. Counsel\u2019s memorandum in support of the petition suggests that jail records describe this latter incident as defendant\u2019s laceration of his right hand which required five stitches.\nThe record further shows about six weeks prior to entry of the guilty plea, defendant was examined to determine his competency to stand trial. After an interview with defendant at which time the psychiatrist was also informed of a substantial part of defendant\u2019s psychiatric history, it was determined that defendant understood the nature of the charges and could cooperate with his counsel. The psychiatric evaluation concluded that defendant was competent to stand trial, although he suffered from a personality disorder.\nAt the guilty plea proceedings, the trial court thoroughly admonished defendant in compliance with Supreme Court Rule 402 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 110A, par. 402). The transcript of these proceedings indicates defendant informed the court he did not feel well. He was allowed to sit and was given water. The transcript reflects that defendant hesitated and he conferred with his attorney before completing his answers to the court\u2019s admonishments. Defendant also expressed fear he had been spiritually condemned for his actions. But the record reflects that responses given by defendant to the court\u2019s inquiries were concise and he expressed no doubt concerning the proceedings.\nAfter the court had accepted the guilty pleas, defendant\u2019s counsel suggested that defendant be transferred to the penitentiary the following day to begin psychiatric treatment. Defendant then intimated if he had been in his \u201cright mind\u201d he would have sought a jury trial, but he could no longer remain in the county jail awaiting trial. The court queried defense counsel whether defendant\u2019s mental condition would allow entry of the pleas. Counsel responded that defendant wanted treatment and counsel would not suggest that defendant was incompetent. Rather, counsel expressed the opinion that defendant knew the nature of the charges and had been able to cooperate in his defense.\nDefendant asserts his pleas were not properly accepted because he was induced to enter the pleas by his belief this method was the only way to receive immediate psychiatric treatment. He concludes the record affirmatively shows that his pleas were not knowingly and intelligently made; and alternatively he requests an evidentiary hearing on the matter.\nExamination of the record in this case shows defendant\u2019s contention is without merit. During the plea admonishments, defendant consistently asserted his understanding of the matters presented, and the plea reflects a knowing choice on defendant\u2019s behalf. If defendant was competent to enter a plea of guilty, the mere fact his plea was in part based on his desire to obtain treatment would not render his plea involuntary. In this regard defendant\u2019s claim is analogous to those of defendants who claimed their guilty pleas were involuntarily made because they feared imposition of a harsher sentence if they sought trial in the matter. (E.g., see People v. Thomas (1972), 51 Ill. 2d 39, 45, 280 N.E.2d 433.) The contention of fear concerning a greater sentence has been rejected, and we believe the same result is proper under the circumstances of the present case.\nDefendant\u2019s claim that a bona fide doubt as to his competency to plead guilty and his claim that a higher standard of competence is necessary to plead guilty than to stand trial may be jointly considered. In People v. Heral (1976), 62 Ill. 2d 329, 334, 342 N.E.2d 34, the supreme court stated that the competency standard to plead guilty or stand trial is the same, i.e., defendant must understand the nature of the charge and purpose of the proceedings and be able to assist in his defense (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 38, par. 1005-2\u20141(a)).\nThe decision of whether or not a bona fide doubt of competency is raised rests initially within the discretion of the trial court. (People v. Skorusa (1973), 55 Ill. 2d 577, 582, 304 N.E.2d 630.) Even if defendant, as here, has a sociopathic personality or is affected with psychiatric disturbances, this would not necessarily raise a bona fide doubt of competence. (People v. Heral; People v. Pack (1976), 34 Ill. App. 3d 894, 897, 341 N.E.2d 4.) The record in the present case does not raise a bona fide doubt of defendant\u2019s competence to plead guilty.\nA psychiatric report compiled several weeks before the entry of the guilty plea reflected defendant\u2019s competency. A review of the guilty plea proceedings shows defendant was aware of the nature of the charges and proceedings. He expressed lucid answers to the trial court\u2019s admonitions. The record does show defendant and counsel conferred during the course of the proceedings, and defendant made certain comments about retribution for his offenses. However, these actions suggest his anxiety and remorse rather than his incompetence to plead guilty. The record does not establish a basis requiring an evidentiary hearing, and the trial court properly dismissed the amended post-conviction petition (People v. Skorusa).\nFinally, defendant\u2019s contention relating to the propriety of multiple sentences is properly cognizable in post-conviction proceedings. (People v. Cox (1972), 53 Ill. 2d 101, 103, 291 N.E.2d 1.) The factual basis for Indictment 73 \u2014 635 showed defendant abducted an eight-year-old girl near her school, took her to his apartment and performed a deviate sexual act on her. Multiple convictions for these offenses were proper. (People v. King (1977), 66 Ill. 2d 551, 363 N.E.2d 838.) The stipulated facts of Indictment 73 \u2014 996 show defendant raped his half-sister and then forced her to perform oral copulation on him. Defendant claims convictions for rape and incest are improper and the State agrees with this contention. It is clear both offenses arose from the same act and thus defendant was prejudiced by multiple convictions (People v. King).\nAccordingly, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County dismissing the post-conviction petition without an evidentiary hearing is affirmed. Defendant\u2019s conviction and sentence for incest imposed on Indictment 73 \u2014 996 is reversed.\nAffirmed in part; reversed in part.\nJOHNSON and ROMITI, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE DIERINGER" } ], "attorneys": [ "James Geis and Victoria J. Meyers, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.", "Bernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Laurence J. Bolon, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSEPH CYBURT, Defendant-Appellant.\nFirst District (4th Division)\nNo. 76-1231\nOpinion filed June 30, 1977.\nJames Geis and Victoria J. Meyers, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.\nBernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Laurence J. Bolon, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0414-01", "first_page_order": 436, "last_page_order": 440 }