# Opposition Brief — Johnson v. Illinois > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385019_0713%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Opposition Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1987 - **Citation:** 484 U.S. 896 ## Text j NO. 87-102 | IN THF a SUPREME COURT OF THF UNITFD sTaTFsS OCTOBER TFPM, 1987 nc, a s+ GEORGE JOHNSON, Petitioner, Vs. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Resvnondent. RESPONDENT'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO TEE APPFLLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT NEIL F. HARTIGAN, Attorney Generel State of Illinois TERENCE M,. MADSFN Assistant Attorney Genera] J8&8 West Randolph Street, Suite 2200 Chicago, Tllinois 6060] Counsel for Responcent,. RICHARD M. DALFY State's Attorney County of Cook 5C0 Richard J. Daley Center Chicago, Illinois €0602 THOMAS V. GAINFR, Un«» KENNETH T. McCURPY, NANCY BLACK, Assistant State's Attorneys Of Counsel *Counsel of Record. NO. @7-193 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM, 1987 GEORGE JOHNSON, Petitioner, Vs. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent. RESPONDENT'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT NEIL F. HARTIGAN, Attorney General State of Illinois TERENCE M. MADSEN Assistant Attorney General 188 West Randolph Street, Suite 2200 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Counsel for Respondent. RICHARD M. DALEY State's Attorney County of Cook 500 Richard J. Daley Center Chicago, Illinois 60602 THOMAS V. GAINER, JR.,* KENNETH T. MCCURRY, NANCY BLACK, Assistant State's Attorneys Of Counsel. *Counsel of Record. QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Whether Petitioner's due process rights were violated where the trial court specifically found his guilty pleas to be freely and voluntarily made, he was sentenced within the agreed upon range and the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the convictions and reduced the sentences. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Question Presented for Review.....eeeees i Table OF CORCOREHs 006 ccc ac cnadendecwvan il Table of Te Ce a phn ae eee ee iii Opinion ON ee are arr rer eee ee ey l JUPiMSiCCiOhscscccacntasnneseenandvueerux 2 Constitutional Provision Involved....... 3 Statement Of FaCtS.ccccscssteusaresessas 4 Reason for Denying the Writ.......seeee. 9 PETITIONER'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS WERE NOT VIOLATED WHERE THE TRIAL COURT SPECIFICALLY FOUND HIS GUILTY PLEAS TO BE FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY MADE, HE WAS SENTENCED WITHIN THE AGREED UPON RANGE AND THE ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT AFFIRMED THE CONVICTIONS AND REDUCED THE SENTENCES... cccccccccce 9 CONCLUSION ss +06 00000605 6606008664664 008" 18 Appendix A - Illinois Supreme Court Rule 402 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Page People v. McCoy, 74 Ill. 2d 398, ee Fee), | Fe ee 10 People v. Turner, 111 Ill. App. 3d 358, 443 N.E.2d 1167 (Znd Dist. 1983)... 10 People v. Smithey, 120 Ill. App. 3d 26, 458 N.E.2d 87 (2nd Dist. 1983)..... 12 People v. Hale, 82 Ill. 2d 172, OS > Bie mae. | ) errr rrr 12 People v. Dumas, 50 Ill. App. 3d 637, 365 N.E.2d 1320 (4th Dist. 1977)... 12 Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. __, 88 L. Ed.2d 203, 3 106 S. Ct. (1985) ..cccccccccecs 13 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 80 L. Ed.2d 674 (1984)...... eeenese 13 People v. Jones, 135 Ill. App. 3d 1023, 482 N.E.2d 1031 (lst Dist. 1985)... 15 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS U.S. Constitution, Amend 6........ eeveee 9 U.8. Constitution, Amend Th.cccoscccoces 9 STATUTES Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 110A, O06. GEsecsctacessece peneeeseéenesee 10 Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 110A, OGG. GLOtEP (EG) % a 7 a? 2 a ° _ =a) Cpe > >>... =5 Joe although there was no need to do so, the Appellate Court reduced Petitioner's sentence pursuant to Illinois Supreme Rule 615(b)(4) which states: (b) Powers of the Reviewing Court. On appeal the reviewing court (4) reduce the punishment imposed by the trial court; However, in the light of the fact that there was no ineffective assistance of counsel in this case, this Court need not review the reduction of Petitioner's sentence. For, although the People maintain that Petitioner's sentence did not require reduction, the People did not petition the Illinois Supreme Court for leave to appeal this ruling. 16 As Petitioner has failed to raise any important constitutional issue or present any grounds which would justify the consumption of this Court's valuable time, the instant Petition for Writ of Certiorari should be denied. af CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, Respondent respectfully prays that this Honorable Court deny the instant Petition for Writ @f Certiorari. Respectfully submitted, NEIL F. HARTIGAN, Attorney General State of Illinois TERENCE M. MADSEN Assistant Attorney General 188 West Randolph Street, Suite 2200 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Counsel for Respondent. RICHARD M. DALEY State's Attorney County of Cook 500 Richard J. Daley Center Chicago, Illinois 60602 THOMAS V. GAINER, JUR.,~ KENNETH T. MCCURRY, NANCY BLACK, Assistant State's Attorneys Of Counsel. * 9 - Counsel of Record. ©) APPENDIX APPENDIX A Illinois Supreme Court Rule 402: 402. (Supreme Court Rule 402). Pleas of Guilty In hearings on pleas of guilty, there must be substantial compliance with the following: (a) Admonitions to Defendant. The court shall not accept a plea of guilty without Lirst, by addressing the defendant personally in open court, informing him of and determining that he understands the following: (1) the nature of the charge; (2) the minimum and maximum sentence prescribed by law, including, when applicable, the penalty to which~ the defendant may be- subjected because of prior convictions or consecutive sentences; (3) that the defendant has the right to plead not guilty, or to persist in that plea if it has already been made, or to plead guilty; and (4) that if he pleads guilty there will not be a trial of any kind, so that by pleading guilty he waives the right to a trial by jury and the right to be confronted with’ the witnesses against him. (b) Determining Whether’ the Plea is Voluntary. The court shall not accept a plea of guilty without first determining that the plea is voluntary. If the tendered plea is the result of a plea agreement, the agreement shall be stated in open court. The court, by questioning the defendant personally in open court, shall confirm the terms of the plea agreement, or that there is no agreement, and shall determine whether’ any force or threats or any promises, apart from a plea aggreement, were used to obtain the plea. (c) Determining Factual Basis for Plea. The court shall _ not enter final judgment on a plea of guilty without first determining that there is a factual basis for the plea. (d) Plea Discussions and Agreements. When there is a plea discussion or plea agreement, the following provisions, in addition to the preceding paragraphs of this shall apply: (1) The trial judge shall not initiate plea discussions. (2) If a tentative plea agreement has been reached by the parties which contemplates entry of a plea of guilty in the expectation that a specified sentence will be imposed or that other charges before the court will be dismissed, the trial judge may permit, upon request of the parties, the disclosure to him of the tentative agreement and the reasons therefor in advance of the tender of the plea. At the same time he may also receive, with the consent of the defendant, evidence in aggravation or mitigation. The judge may then indicate to the parties whether he will concur in the proposed disposition; and if he has not yet received evidence in aggravation or mitigation, he may indicate that his concurrence is conditional on that evidence being consistent with the representations made to him. If he has indicated his concurrence or conditional concurrence, he shall so state in open court at the time the agreement is stated as required by paragraph (b) of this rule. If the defendant thereupon pleads guilty, but the trial judge later withdraws his concurrence or conditional concurrence, he shall so advise the parties and then call upon the defendant either to affirm or to withdraw his plea of guilty. If the defendant thereupon withdraws his plea, the trial judge shall recuse himself. (3) If the parties have not sought or the trial judge has declined to give his concurrence or conditional concurrence to a plea agreement, he shall inform the defendant in open court at the time the agreement is stated as required by paragraph (b) of this rule that the court is not bound by the plea agreement, and that if the defendant persists in his plea the disposition may be different from that contemplated by the plea agreement. (e) Transcript. In cases in which the defendant is charged with a crime punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary, . the proceedings required by this rule to be in open court what be taken verbatim, and upon order of the trial court transcribed, filed and made a part of the common law record. (f) Plea Discussions, Plea Agreements, Pleas of Guilty Inadmissible Under Certain Circumstances. If a plea discussion does not result in a plea of guilty, or if a plea of guilty is not accepted or is withdrawn, or if judgment on a plea of guilty is not accepted or is withdrawn, or if judgment on a plea of guilty is reversed on direct or collateral review, neither the plea discussion nor any resulting agreement, plea, or judgment shall be admissible against the defendant in any criminal proceeding. Amended eff. Feb. 1, 1981. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385019_0713%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.