Case ID: ill_306/html/0340-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Chief Justice Thompson", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(No. 14992.
    —Judgment affirmed.)
    The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. Frank O’Brien, Plaintiff in Error.
    
      Opinion filed December 19, 1922
    Rehearing denied Feb. 9, 1923.
    
    Criminal law — plea of guilty includes every element of crime charged in the indictment. A defendant charged with the crimes of burglary and of receiving stolen property, who pleads guilty of receiving stolen property in manner and form as charged, admits every element of the crime of receiving stolen property, and the plea is not a mere admission that he received the property without knowing that it was stolen or without any intention to deprive the owner of the same.
    Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Bureau county; the Hon. Joe A. Davis, Judge, presiding.
    Lester E. Williams, and Charles P. R. Macaulay, for plaintiff in error.
    Edward J. Brundage, Attorney General, Carey R. Johnson, Staté’s Attorney, and George C. Dixon, for the People.
   Mr. Chief Justice Thompson

delivered the opinion of the court;

Plaintiff in error was charged by indictment in the circuit court of Bureau county with the crimes of burglary and of receiving stolen property of the value of $45,000. He entered his plea of guilty of receiving stolen property in manner and form as charged in the indictment. The court explained to him the consequences of his plea, and he persisted therein and was sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary until discharged pursuant to law.

The sole point urged that requires consideration is that the plea of guilty was insufficient, the contention being that plaintiff in error merely confessed receiving the property but that he did not admit that he knew that it was stolen, or that he received it for his own gain or with intent to deprive the owner of the same. This contention is without merit. The plea of guilty was to the crime charged in the indictment, and when he entered the plea he admitted his guilt to each and every element of the crime legally charged. There is no contention that the indictment was not sufficient or that plaintiff in error was not duly and properly admonished regarding his plea.

The judgment is affirmed. T , , rr , Judgment affirmed.