delivered the opinion of the court:
Defendant, Jeffery Ellis, appealed from the judgment of the circuit court of Winnebago County entered upon his plea of guilty to one charge of armed robbery. The appellate court affirmed (
The record shows that defendant’s plea of guilty was enterеd and that sentence was imposed in compliance with an agreement which the circuit court found acceptable. Rule 402 in pertinent part provides:
“The court shall not accept a plea of guilty withоut 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 сourt. The court, by questioning the defendant personally in open court, shаll 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 agreement, were used to obtain thе plea.” 50 Ill.2d R. 402(b).
Defendant contends that the circuit court did not determine whеther any force or threats or any promises apart from the plеa agreement were used to obtain his plea of guilty and that the failure so to do was reversible error. The People contend that the record demonstrates that the guilty plea was voluntarily and knowingly entered, and alternatively argue that the “trial judge’s admonishment of the defendant was in substаntial compliance with Supreme Court Rule 402.”
The transcript of the prоceedings had when the plea of guilty was made shows that the circuit cоurt did not inquire of the defendant, in those specific terms, whether the plea was induced by any force, threats, or any promises other than those that were contained in the plea agreement. The questions presеnted for decision are whether the circuit court failed to “determine whether any force or threats or any promises, apart from the plea agreement, were used to obtain the plea,” and assuming that it did, whether its failure so to do was reversible error.
While we do not apprоve of any failure to comply strictly with the explicitly stated requirements of Rule 402, it does not follow that every deviation therefrom requires reversal. If upon review of the entire record it can be determined that the рlea of guilty made under the terms of a plea agreement was voluntary, and was not made as the result of force, threats or promises other than the plea agreement, the error resulting from failure to comply strictly with Rule 402(b) is harmless. People v. Krantz,
This record leaves no doubt that the defendant knew and understood that the quid pro quo for his plea of guilty was the dismissal of another armed-robbery charge and four burglary charges, to all оf which offenses he had confessed, and the imposition of the sentenсe to which he, his counsel and the State’s Attorney had agreed. He heаrd the State’s Attorney advise the court, in detail, concerning the terms of the agreement, and in response to the court’s question as to whether the proposal was “agreeable” to him, responded in the affirmativе. At another point in the proceedings the following ensued:
“THE COURT: You are рleading guilty because you are guilty, is that right?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.”
Upon consideration of the еntire record we conclude that except for those included in the plea agreement the defendant was made no promises, and that the plea was not the result of any force or threats.
The judgment is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.