Legal Opinion · Concurrence

People v. Alfaro

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided May 11, 1978No. 76-452Published

1Concurrence

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE SEIDENFELD,

specially concurring:

I am concerned that the majority opinion imports that no evidentiary hearing pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 604(d) is ever required where the court, as it did here, carefully admonished a defendant in specific areas of coercion and is told that there has been none. I concur, however, because the motions to vacate to the extent they were supported by the affidavits did not add any additional facts which would be beyond the direct knowledge of the judge based on the record before him and which could show the guilty pleas were, in fact, the…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Bordenkircher v. HayesSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. Ruben R. Cortez v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1964
  3. Thomas A. Kent v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1959
  4. People v. MorrealeIllinois Supreme Court · 1952
  5. People v. FreyIllinois Supreme Court · 1977

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API