Court Opinion

ID: 9819310
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 06:22:20.074486+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:29.890307
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. I would find that the defendant’s stipulated bench trial was tantamount to a guilty plea and as the judge had not accepted the stipulations, jeopardy had not attached. I would therefore affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss and would remand the matter for further proceedings. It is well settled that where a defendant in a stipulated bench trial stipulates only to the existence of evidence, the proceeding is not tantamount to a guilty plea. People v Horton, 143 Ill. 2d 11, 22 (1991). However, if the defendant stipulates not just to the existence of the evidence but to the sufficiency of that evidence to convict, the stipulation is the equivalent of a guilty plea. People v. Cunningham, 286 Ill. App. 3d 346 (1997). In the matter sub judice, the defendant, through counsel, unequivocally stipulated “not only to the facts, but to the sufficiency of the evidence to convict” of the charge of murder. Thus, defendant’s stipulations were tantamount to a guilty plea. As the majority notes, jeopardy attaches to a guilty plea when the plea is accepted by the trial judge. People v. McCutcheon, 68 Ill. 2d 101 (1977). Since the defendant’s stipulated bench trial was tantamount to a guilty plea, and the trial court rejected the stipulations, I would find that jeopardy did not attach. Since jeopardy had not yet attached when the trial court rejected the stipulations, the court properly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss.