*1 necessary instances in certain but it is business choly tois protect of disbarment good. purpose public profession. and to maintain integrity the public was In Melnick, respondent Ill. 200.) re (In that which similar to misconduct this court for censured by unhappy here. would appear has been disclosed halt cause the did not respondent of censure experience In a involved case which his practices. unprofessional “Re censure we said: misconduct following repetition only way demonstrated has clearly spondent his such strike him from practices engaging prevent McCallum, re attorneys.” (In from the roll name Here, too, can we deem that the only way Ill. 417.) interest and avoid embarrassment protect public is to strike the name respondent’s administration of justice the recommendation from the role of attorneys. adopt enter of disbarment. of the Board and
Respondent disbarred. (No. 40431. Appellee, Illinois, State H. Appellant. Whitfield, Sept. 24, J.,
Kluczynski, part.
Ward, J., took no *2 Defender, of Chicago, Public Gerald W. Getty, and Cohn, F. Singer, Frederick (Shelvin J. Defenders, of for counsel,) Public Assistant Doherty, appellant. General, of Clark,
William G. Attorney Springfield, and Chicago, Stamos, (Fred John J. General, G. Assistant and Elmer C. Attorney Leach, Kis- and B. Assistant State’s Attorneys, Selig, sane David counsel,) for the People. House the court: delivered opinion here is whether defendant has question presented
the constitutional be advised his counsel the State’s offer to to the reduced accept plea guilty charge and to recommend manslaughter probation.
This is from an order of the circuit court of Cook County the dismissing under petition Post-Conviction Hearing Act. The found hearing judge that the had told defendant’s prosecutor that the attorney State would and guilty manslaughter recommend but probation, he found that the offer was not communicated to the defendant. He held as a matter of law, however, that the failure communicate the offer was not a violation of defendant’s constitutional rights.
The record amply the supports of the trial findings The affidavit judge. assistant State’s who Attorney the case was prosecuted attached to the petition related An following: offer to reduce the charge from murder was made to manslaughter defendant’s court-appointed the defend- friends of were counsel since the witnesses only would stated that he ant, Attorney and the assistant State’s that day Later for probation. object application and about client would not plead said his the attorney about when asked trial made a similar statement day of a questioned When guilty. possibility him, the as to what would happen fendant’s mother and said to the attorney related the offer made prosecutor if he get “that her son would perhaps probation further to manslaughter.” pleaded that he had talked to defend- testified Defense counsel offer, but not with ant’s mother about the the case. Both defend- he could win that he thought that she did not tell defendant testified ant and his mother in a bench trial and he was convicted until after of the offer a term of to 18 penitentiary was sentenced that the trial knew to indicate There is nothing years. *3 its refusal. offer or Darrah, Ill.2d 180: in v. 175, As we said 33 illustrate some of the prob “These cases [prior citations] a plea from that result may ‘negotiated’ lems —a with by agreement a offense entered to lesser entered after an under or one for example, prosecution, that the prose reached as to the sentence has been standing of elimination of The possibility will recommend.” cution after a a sentence between imposed differentiation any discussed after trial was then one imposed “Moreover comment: following Darrah followed a to sentencing ignore such a rule would require his own how knowledge guilt, the defendant’s case every established, have been that knowledge might ever clearly of an effect the assumed to psychological disregard in the as an process important step guilt acknowledgment state of our In the knowledge present reformation. should judges at least doubtful it is human psychology case, that assumption to disregard in every be required,
311 But we are when sentence.” Ill.2d (33 175, 180.) imposing must pass not rather here faced with a negotiated plea, reject defendant’s lack of or upon opportunity offer of such plea. or tactical
The State that this was strategic suggests ques decision of counsel with its concomitant was con tion of waiver of constitutional Waiver right. Williams, Ill.2d sidered at in People 194, some v. length 36 and a with dealing review was made of the Federal cases that a waiver conclusion then reached was subject. counsel as a of trial is on an matter strategy binding accused, while waiver of a not trial right constituting not be on unless the ac will the accused strategy binding cused in the waiver. participates
A defendant has the right decide whether appeal or not to Noia, v. U.S. L. Ed. 2d (Fay 391, 9 S. Ct. 822) as well as the to decide whether right Janis, not plead guilty. (Brookhart v. U.S. L. Ed. 2d 86 S. These and others Ct. 1245.) rights trial go beyond follows if a strategy. logically defendant has the make a decision to right plead he also guilty, has the make the decision plead guilty. Due process demands this It was his protection. choice, not that of his counsel or This does not his mother. lower the bars for stale claims of as unfounded prisoners the prosecution seems to think because in case it this all, conceded assistant including made, that the offer was and the testimony defense counsel, of the mother and of defendant established that the offer was not transmitted. This is a rather situation. unique Any similar cases can dealt be with *4 as they arise.
We with the sympathize prosecution’s plaintive query: What more could he have done than make the offer in good faith, it to the explain defendant’s mother and fense counsel’s statement that the offer had been conveyed. answer, course, further. do is that he could nothing
The since an untenable position that he was agree put However, directly. to the defendant he could speak after this should be no reoccurrence problem there opinion. circuit court of Cook County remanded for a new trial.
reversed and the cause is
Reversed and remanded. Kluczynski Mr. Justice consideration or took no part Ward of this case.
decision cons. (Nos. Depart- Corporation al., et Appellants, Philco Appellee. Revenue,
ment of Sept.