Court Opinion

ID: 9710632
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:13:44.263359+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:58.635564
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE GEORGE J. MORAN, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I concur in the reversal of the judgment and sentence for forgery. I dissent, however, from the affirmance of the defendant’s conviction for deceptive practices. To comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 402(a) in accepting the defendant’s plea that she was guilty of deceptive practices, the circuit court also had to inform the defendant of the maximum and minimum to determine that she understood the nature of the charge. The circuit court also had to inform the defendant of the maximum and minimum sentence that could be imposed on her if she pled guilty to the charge of deceptive practices. In addition, Illinois Supreme Court Rule 402(c) required the circuit court to determine, before entering final judgment on the plea of guilty, that there was a factual basis for the plea. None of these things was done at the guilty plea hearing. The majority holds that affidavits which were filed by the defendant long after the guilty plea hearing made the defects of the guilty plea hearing inconsequential. This is contrary to the pronouncement of the United States Supreme Court in Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 23 L.Ed.2d 274, 89 S.Ct. 1709 (1969). Boykin said that a judge who accepts a guilty plea must develop a record adequate to show that the plea was made voluntarily and understandingly. The record to which that case referred was the record of a defendant’s arraignment. When a guilty plea hearing is inadequate, the record of that proceeding is necessarily inadequate, and the rule of Boykin is violated. That is what has happened in the present case.