The fact that he was correctly admonished on January 19th may be considered but is not the full answer to the question whether defendant understood the minimum and maximum penalties on the following March 10th. • 3 We have recently held ( People v. Jacobs (1971), 267 N.E.2d 519, 522) that a delay of 4 days between the admonishment and the acceptance of the plea did not make the plea improper when there was no indication from the record that the defendant was unaware of the consequences. But here the time interval was very substantial; the defendant's testimony that he had no recollection of the prior advice by the court, and was not so advised by his counsel, was not impeached; and his attorney could not say that he had advised the defendant.
• 2, 3 We have previously held that the admonishment set forth in Supreme Court Rule 402 need not be repeated if the arraignment is temporarily interrupted. ( People v. Jacobs (1971), (Ill.App.3d), 267 N.E.2d 519, 522.) At the arraignment begun on the same date as the taking of the plea, the court clearly admonished defendant and inquired whether he understood the right to a jury trial and the defendant was given the right to plead not guilty and to withdraw his plea even after plea negotiations were concurred in by the court.