{
  "id": 3203535,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TERRY HEARD, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Heard",
  "decision_date": "1980-05-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 77-1779",
  "first_page": "543",
  "last_page": "546",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "84 Ill. App. 3d 543"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "286 N.E.2d 812",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "6 Ill. App. 3d 909",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2470966
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/6/0909-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "331 N.E.2d 316",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "29 Ill. App. 3d 568",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2500136
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/29/0568-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "270 N.E.2d 30",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "48 Ill. 2d 371",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2908254
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/48/0371-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "317 N.E.2d 559",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "58 Ill. 2d 187",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2952306
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/58/0187-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "319 N.E.2d 507",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "59 Ill. 2d 125",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2960454
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/59/0125-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 357,
    "char_count": 6228,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.903,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.333239313479978e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3890784752315676
    },
    "sha256": "f96309e4a2ecf420e94711e6b15d8b5ebe62f6aa74ea7be6b90d7b66571f982b",
    "simhash": "1:2b3ab4adcf168ef5",
    "word_count": 1047
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:36:38.181565+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. TERRY HEARD, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE McGLOON\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant Terry Heard\u2019s petition for post-conviction relief was dismissed on October 5, 1977. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in dismissing the petition without an evidentiary hearing.\nWe affirm.\nTerry Heard was charged by indictment with murder and aggravated battery. On December 3, 1974, petitioner\u2019s initial plea of not guilty was withdrawn as a result of a conference between her attorney and the State, and she consequently entered a guilty plea to the charge of murder.\nThe court explained to petitioner the nature of and possible sentences for the charge. The court then stated that by pleading guilty to the charge, she automatically relinquished her right to be tried by a judge and jury. The nature of a jury trial was explained to Heard and she thereafter signed a jury waiver.\nThe parties stipulated to the facts of the offense. Defendant entered a plea of guilty and was found guilty. After hearing arguments in aggravation and mitigation, the court again discussed with defendant her decision to plead guilty. The following exchange took place:\n\u201cTHE COURT: You understand you have pleaded guilty to the charge?\nDEFENDANT HEARD: Yes.\nTHE COURT: There was a conference held. The State\u2019s Attorney offered that, and he said that you agreed and consented to the recommendation, and the Court concurred, 14 years, and not less than 14 years and one day. That was told to you too? You accepted it?\nDEFENDANT HEARD: I understand what you are saying.\nTHE COURT: All right. You do accept it. That is what you want to do?\nDEFENDANT HEARD: There wasn\u2019t no other choice.\nTHE COURT: There is a choice. You see, I told you here earlier you have a right to plead not guilty, and you have a right to have a trial, and you can have a determination by either the judge or jury.\nDEFENDANT HEARD: I will go ahead.\u201d\nJudgment was entered on the finding and defendant received a sentence of 14 years to 14 years and one day in the Illinois Department of Corrections. The charge of aggravated battery was stricken on motion of the State.\nOn February 19, 1976, defendant filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief. On May 3, 1976, the State filed a motion to dismiss the petition to which was attached the transcript of the hearing at which defendant pleaded guilty. Counsel entered an appearance on behalf of defendant and filed an amended petition for post-conviction relief on October 5, 1977.\nThe amended petition alleged that Heard\u2019s guilty plea was not voluntarily and intelligently made because she was not adequately informed of her option to be tried by the judge. Attached to the amended petition was Heard\u2019s affidavit in which she stated that she never understood that she had a right to a bench trial and that, had she understood that right, she would not have pleaded guilty. After a hearing on the State\u2019s motion to dismiss the court granted the motion upon its finding that Heard was adequately informed of and understood her rights.\nDefendant argues that the trial court failed adequately to inform her of her right to a bench trial. Therefore, she contends, an evidentiary hearing should have been held on her petition for post-conviction relief in order to determine whether she was, in fact, unaware of her right to a bench trial.\nSupreme Court Rule 402 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 110A, par. 402) provides in part:\n\u201cIn hearings of pleas of guilty, there must be substantial compliance with the following:\n(a) Admonitions to Defendant. The court shall not accept a plea of guilty without first, by addressing the defendant personally in open court, informing him of and determining that he understands the following:\nft ft ft\n(4) that if he pleads guilty there will not be a trial of any kind, so that by pleading guilty he waives the right to a trial by jury and the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him.\u201d\nRule 402(a) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 110A, par. 402(a)) requires admonishments so that a court may ascertain whether a defendant who pleads guilty does so voluntarily and understands the rights he waives by entering such a plea. (People v. Warship (1974), 59 Ill. 2d 125,319 N.E.2d 507.) In order to meet the requirements of this rule, only substantial compliance with the provisions is necessary. (People v. Warship; People v. Krantz (1974), 58 Ill. 2d 187, 317 N.E.2d 559, citing People v. Mendoza (1971), 48 Ill. 2d 371, 270 N.E.2d 30.) Moreover, the rule does not specifically require that the court inform defendant that he is entitled to a bench trial; it merely states that defendant must be informed that if he pleads guilty, there will be no trial of any kind. See People v. Reese (1975), 29 Ill. App. 3d 568, 331 N.E.2d 316.\nUpon reviewing the record we are convinced that the trial court properly admonished petitioner regarding the consequences of her guilty plea thereby substantially complying with Rule 402(a). Petitioner was advised by the court both at the beginning and at the close of the hearing that she had a right to a trial and that she could have a determination by either the judge or a jury. Moreover, she was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings and continually expressed her understanding of the court\u2019s admonishments.\nThe transcript of this hearing was attached to the State\u2019s motion to dismiss the petition for post-conviction relief. Therefore the trial court did not err in dismissing the petition without an evidentiary hearing since the transcript itself refuted the allegations in Heard\u2019s petition. People v. Walker (1972), 6 Ill. App. 3d 909, 286 N.E.2d 812.\nFor the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court\u2019s order dismissing Terry Heard\u2019s petition for post-conviction relief.\nOrder affirmed.\nGOLDBERG, P. J., and O\u2019CONNOR, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE McGLOON"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ralph Ruebner and Susan Solovy, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.",
      "Bernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Marcia B. Orr, Myra J. Brown and Mark A. Graf, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TERRY HEARD, Defendant-Appellant.\nFirst District (1st Division)\nNo. 77-1779\nOpinion filed May 5, 1980.\nRalph Ruebner and Susan Solovy, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.\nBernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Marcia B. Orr, Myra J. Brown and Mark A. Graf, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0543-01",
  "first_page_order": 565,
  "last_page_order": 568
}