Court Opinion

ID: 9525396
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:03:12.948383+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:14:30.400829
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE CRAVEN, specially concurring: I concur in the judgment that the conviction should be affirmed. In People v. Pujoue (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 335, 335 N.E.2d 437, and People v. Gilmore (1976), 63 Ill. 2d 23, 344 N.E.2d 456, the supreme court clearly held that an information or indictment when attacked for the first time on appeal is sufficient if it apprised the accused of the offense charged with sufficient specificity to prepare his defense and to show a resulting conviction as a bar to future prosecution arising out of the same conduct. In this case, the defendant, by motion prior to trial, did attack the sufficiency of the indictment but not upon the specific grounds now urged. I would agree that under Pujoue and Gilmore, the indictment cannot now be attacked. Waiver is more a valid disposition of this case in view of the fact that this was a negotiated plea of guilty, such plea being a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defects. It is unnecessary to discuss the substantive but waived issue of the validity of the indictment. It should be noted, although the issue is not raised, that the consecutive sentences as imposed are contrary to the decision of this court in People v. Dawson (1975), 30 Ill. App. 3d 147, 332 N.E.2d 58. For the reasons set forth in that case, said sentences should be held to be concurrent.