{
  "id": 2669321,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Lee Dye, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Dye",
  "decision_date": "1972-10-16",
  "docket_number": "No. 71-63",
  "first_page": "805",
  "last_page": "806",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "7 Ill. App. 3d 805"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 203,
    "char_count": 2254,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.733,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.3044316548742216e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7877461195614107
    },
    "sha256": "8d58a32358877ad0f425f1fb8504b8ff87878e4e2d25d91adf2d43bb4a34674b",
    "simhash": "1:967ad0db54c520e0",
    "word_count": 374
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:18:17.074050+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. Richard Lee Dye, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE GEORGE J. MORAN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant Richard Lee Dye pled guilty to the crime of theft in excess of $150.00 in violation of Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 38, par. 16 \u2014 1, after a negotiated plea.\nDefendant contends in his appeal that the trial court failed to comply substantially with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 402(a)(4), (b) and (c).\nThe record poses serious questions of substantial compliance with Sections 402(a)(4) and (b), but these contentions will not be discussed because the trial court\u2019s failure to comply with Rule 402(c) requires reversal of defendant\u2019s sentence of conviction and remandment to the trial court.\nThe only discussion in the record which even remotely resembles a determination of the factual basis of the plea is the following:\n\u201cCOURT: Before I accept your plea of guilty, I want to advise you that this offense carries with it the possibility of a sentence from one year to ten years in the penitentiary. Knowing that, do you still say you are guilty as charged in the indictmentP [Emphasis added.]\nDEFENDANT: Yes.\u201d\nThe defendant\u2019s response to the question amounts to nothing more than a statement of a legal conclusion that he is guilty of the crime, or a reaffirmation that he wishes to plead guilty. An examination of the record fails to reveal when and where the alleged theft occurred, and what was allegedly taken. Consequently, the record also fails to show any connection between acts committed by the defendant and the acts and intent required to constitute the offense of theft. (People v. Hudson, ante, p. 800.) There is no basis whatsoever for reasonably concluding that there is a factual basis for the plea of guilty.\nFor the foregoing reasons the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case is remanded to the Circuit Court of Saline County with directions that defendant be allowed to plead anew.\nReversed and remanded with directions.\nEBERSPACHER and CREBS, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE GEORGE J. MORAN"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Alan Walker, of Niedringhaus and Edison, of Granite City, for appellant.",
      "Archie Bob Henderson, State\u2019s Attorney, of Harrisburg, for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Lee Dye, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 71-63;\nFifth District\nOctober 16, 1972.\nAlan Walker, of Niedringhaus and Edison, of Granite City, for appellant.\nArchie Bob Henderson, State\u2019s Attorney, of Harrisburg, for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0805-01",
  "first_page_order": 827,
  "last_page_order": 828
}