Court Opinion

ID: 9714032
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:29:03.357465+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:22.780637
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE McCULLOUGH, dissenting: I disagree with the majority as to the first issue raised by the defendant. The trial court erred in refusing defendant’s stated desire to plead not guilty. I do agree that the hearing held September 10, 1996, substantially complied with Rule 402(b). The record shows a pro se motion filed September 11, 1996, by defendant to withdraw his plea of guilty based upon ineffectiveness of counsel. The record also shows five other pro se motions purported to have been signed by defendant on September 11, 1996, but none of these show a clerk’s file stamp. On September 13, 1996, the State’s Attorney and defendant and his attorney were before the court. The record does not indicate at whose behest the hearing was held although defendant’s amended motion to withdraw states the hearing was at the request of the State’s Attorney. The apparent purpose of the hearing was to admonish defendant anew as to the option of a consecutive sentence. The colloquy shows: “THE COURT: *** Do you understand that? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Knowing that, do you still wish to leave stand your plea of guilty? THE DEFENDANT: No, sir. THE COURT: What do you wish to do? THE DEFENDANT: I wish to vacate my plea of guilty, Your Honor. THE COURT: Are we ready for trial? Can we re allot it for Monday? MR. AHOLA: Well I have about 50 witnesses I called off already. MR. MORTHLAND: We have also called off the witness for us.” As the majority suggests, the trial court may have thought it was reconvening defendant’s guilty plea hearing on September 13, 1996. We should not hold the defendant to a higher standard. The record is clear that when asked if he wished to leave stand his plea of guilty, defendant responded, “No, Sir,” and “I wish to vacate my plea of guilty, your honor.” This is no different than the usual case when a defendant states his plea of guilty, the court admonishes defendant and again asking defendant, do you persist in your plea of guilty, he answers no. As the record shows, the trial court asked counsel as to trial readiness, “Can we reallot it for Monday?” Both the State’s Attorney and defendant’s attorney answered that they had excused their witnesses from coming in. The record suggests the trial court accepted the plea of not guilty and reallotted the case for jury trial. I am unaware of a case with a similar factual setting where, at the request of the State’s Attorney, a new admonition hearing is held as to the possible penalty and upon questioning by the trial court, “Do you still wish to leave stand your plea of guilty’ he answers, “No, Sir.” I suggest the hearing of September 13 should not be considered separate from the September 10 hearing as to the Rule 402 hearing. There simply is not a confirmed guilty plea. Under the facts of this case, the trial court did abuse its discretion in refusing to allow defendant to withdraw his plea of guilty.