{
  "id": 2844452,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth A. Bartholomew, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Bartholomew",
  "decision_date": "1973-01-29",
  "docket_number": "No. 72-101",
  "first_page": "624",
  "last_page": "626",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "9 Ill. App. 3d 624"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "232 N.E.2d 795",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "90 Ill.App.2d 132",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2898437
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/90/0132-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "107 N.E.2d 721",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "412 Ill. 528",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2663119
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/412/0528-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "230 N.E.2d 233",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "38 Ill.2d 39",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2861708
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/38/0039-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "259 N.E.2d 16",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "45 Ill.2d 300",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2896647
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/45/0300-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 293,
    "char_count": 4317,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.768,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.676830387708631e-08,
      "percentile": 0.35527418780013814
    },
    "sha256": "b6f59ffd51982c8cb5e1c71fd873de8f8a25e242ca213c0d595018dbe856fcba",
    "simhash": "1:733c319cff203adf",
    "word_count": 701
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:41:33.026395+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. Kenneth A. Bartholomew, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE STOUDER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant, Kenneth Bartholomew, pleaded guilty in the Circuit Court of Fulton County to the charge of theft and was sentenced to a term of from 3 to 7 years in the penitentiary.\nOn November 22, 1971, defendant was arraigned and was duly advised of his constitutional rights including his right of legal representation all of which rights he waived. Defendant persisted in his plea of guilty and on this appeal it is conceded that all of the requirements preceding the court\u2019s acceptance of his plea of guilty were duly and satisfactorily complied with. After the acceptance of his plea of guilty defendant requested probation. On November 23, 1971, the Probation Officer filed his report recommending against probation and recommending imprisonment. The court again spoke to defendant about the appointment of counsel and at this juncture the defendant decided that he desired that counsel be appointed and the public defender was so appointed. On December 22, 1971, the public defender moved to have the guilty plea withdrawn and defendant rearraigned. This motion was denied. Probation was also denied and defendant was sentenced to 3 to 7 years in the penitentiary.\nOn this appeal defendant\u2019s only assignment of error is his claim the trial court erred in denying him leave to withdraw his plea of guilty and substitute therefore a plea of not guilty. As indicated earlier no claim is made of any inadequacies or deficiencies in the admonitions or advice of constitutional rights given to defendant prior to the acceptance of his plea of guilty. Thus no claim is made that he was entitled to the substitution of pleas as a matter of right.\nThe principles applicable to the discretion of the trial court in refusing or granting permission to withdraw guilty pleas are discussed at length in People v. McKirdie, 45 Ill.2d 300, 259 N.E.2d 16; People v. Walston, 38 Ill.2d 39, 230 N.E.2d 233; People v. Morreale, 412 Ill. 528, 107 N.E.2d 721, and People v. Cassiday, 90 Ill.App.2d 132, 232 N.E.2d 795. We beHeve it unnecessary to restate those principles in this opinion believing it sufficient to observe that permission to withdraw a guilty plea should be granted if there be a showing of any misunderstanding, misapprehension or misrepresentation. In this connection it should be observed that the recently adopted rules of the Supreme Court requiring full disclosure of all of defendant\u2019s rights to him before his plea of gu\u00f1ty may be accepted as weU as judicial recognition of plea bargaining and its associated safeguards have as their underlying motive the avoidance of misunderstanding or misrepresentation. By more fuUy disclosing defendant\u2019s right to him it is hoped and expected that the potential areas of dispute may be substantiaUy reduced and the meaningfulness of the court\u2019s acceptance of a plea of gufity substantiaUy increased.\nIn People v. McKirdie, 45 Ill.2d 300, 259 N.E.2d 16, and People v. Walston, 38 Ill.2d 39, 230 N.E.2d 233, it was determined that the trial court may have abused its discretion in denying permission for the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea where the trial court unduly limited the defendant\u2019s efforts to justify his request. In this case at the time the public defender moved to withdraw the gu\u00fcty plea he made some suggestion that perhaps the defendant may not have reaUzed the effect of his confession. However such suggestion appears to be speculation without any supporting facts or without any request that anything else be considered by the court. Under these circumstances we find that nothing was presented to the trial court from which it might be inferred that fairness or justice authorized a new plea and we find no error in the court\u2019s denial of defendant\u2019s request for substitution of plea.\nFor the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Circuit Court of Fulton County is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nALLOY, P. J., and DIXON, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE STOUDER"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Steve Hurley, of Defender Project, of Ottawa, for appellant.",
      "Thomas Sullivan, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of Lewistown, (James W. Jerz, of Illinois State\u2019s Attorney\u2019s Association, of counsel,) for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth A. Bartholomew, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 72-101;\nThird District\nJanuary 29, 1973.\nSteve Hurley, of Defender Project, of Ottawa, for appellant.\nThomas Sullivan, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of Lewistown, (James W. Jerz, of Illinois State\u2019s Attorney\u2019s Association, of counsel,) for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0624-01",
  "first_page_order": 646,
  "last_page_order": 648
}