The appellate court affirmed his conviction with one justice dissenting. ( 6 Ill. App.3d 461.) We granted leave to appeal.
¶ 27 Although defendant's admission had already been accepted by the trial court before sentencing, the facts disclosed in the PSI and at the sentencing hearing may properly be considered in determining whether a factual basis for the plea has been established. Bleitner, 199 Ill. App. 3d at 150, 556 N.E.2d at 821 (1990); see also People v. Warship, 6 Ill. App. 3d 461, 465, 285 N.E.2d 224, 228 (1972) ("The facts disclosed at the hearing on aggravation and mitigation were more than adequate to constitute a basis for the plea entered by the defendant. Although the plea had already been accepted at that time, it was sufficient under [Rule 402(c)] to support the plea on which the conviction was entered.").
Moreover, even though the plea had already been accepted, facts disclosed at the sentencing hearing can be considered in determining whether an adequate factual basis for the plea has been established. People v. Warship (1972), 6 Ill. App.3d 461, 285 N.E.2d 224. • 2 Here, the record shows the State gave a detailed factual basis for the plea which included corroborating forensic tests and physical evidence.
This court has also held that a trial judge may use any portion of the record, even facts brought out at the hearing in aggravation and mitigation after acceptance of the plea, to find a factual basis for the plea. People v. Warship (1972), 6 Ill. App.3d 461, 285 N.E.2d 224; People v. Kinsley (1973), 10 Ill. App.3d 326, 293 N.E.2d 627. In the present case, after 2 or 3 days of trial, but before the State had rested, the trial court had heard three witnesses testify concerning defendant's extrajudicial confession of guilt.
Since Rule 402 has come into effect, Illinois courts have held that failure to advise defendant of the minimum and maximum sentences to which guilty pleas would make the accused subject, constitutes an absence of substantial compliance with Rule 402. ( People v. Short (1972), 4 Ill. App.3d 849, 281 N.E.2d 785; People v. Fairchild (1971), 133 Ill. App.2d 875, 272 N.E.2d 445.) However, compare People v. Goodman (1971), 2 Ill. App.3d 584, 277 N.E.2d 136; People v. Warship (1972), 6 Ill. App.3d 461, 285 N.E.2d 224; and People v. Hartman (1972), 6 Ill. App.3d 543, 285 N.E.2d 600. Additionally, the trial court failed to state the terms of the plea bargaining agreement in open court, as required by 402(b).
Such is sufficient to satisfy substantial compliance with the requirements set forth in Supreme Court Rule 402(c). See People v. Warship, 6 Ill. App.3d 461, 285 N.E.2d 224; People v. Abel, 10 Ill. App.3d 210, 291 N.E.2d 841. The judgment and the sentence of the circuit court of Livingston County are affirmed.
That court, however, did not concur and stated at page 627: "We do not believe there is any such absolute requirement and that in each case the court should determine whether there has been substantial compliance as was noted in the cases of People v. Burt, 5 Ill. App.3d 333, 282 N.E.2d 221; People v. Walsh, 3 Ill. App.3d 1042, 279 N.E.2d 739; People v. Hartman, 6 Ill. App.3d 543, 285 N.E.2d 600, and People v. Warship, 6 Ill. App.3d 461, 285 N.E.2d 224. It is also pointed out that there is no prejudice shown to defendant in this case and that there is no assertion by defendant on appeal that there was in fact any force, threats or other promises made to obtain his guilty plea.
• 3 Lastly, the defendant contends that the trial court failed to determine the factual basis for the plea prior to accepting the defendant's plea as required by Rule 402(c). In People v. Warship (1972), 6 Ill. App.3d 461, 285 N.E.2d 224, however, we have ruled that it is sufficient under the rule if the trial court determines the factual basis for the plea at the hearing in aggravation and mitigation after the plea had been accepted. (Accord, People v. Abel (4th Dist. 1973), 10 Ill. App.3d 210, 291 N.E.2d 841; People v. Kinsley (5th Dist. 1973), 10 Ill. App.3d 326, 293 N.E.2d 627.)
This court has held that the judge may use any portion of the record to find a factual basis for the plea ( People v. Dugan, 4 Ill. App.3d 45, 280 N.E.2d 239), and the Appellate Court for the Second District has held that a factual basis may be found from facts brought out at the hearing in aggravation and mitigation although the plea has already been accepted. ( People v. Warship, 6 Ill. App.3d 461, 285 N.E.2d 224.) The trial court's determination that a factual basis existed for the guilty plea was made in substantial compliance with Rule 402(c).
The hearing in aggravation and mitigation is for the purpose of informing the court of the subjective matters aimed at fixing sentence. It is much to be preferred that the factual basis for the plea of guilty be ascertained prior to and separate from the hearing in aggravation and mitigation. However, the procedure here employed has been approved in People v. Warship, 6 Ill. App.3d 461, 285 N.E.2d 224. The judgment and sentence of the circuit court of Moultrie County is affirmed.