McDowell v. People

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: KLINGBIEL
• Citation: McDowell v. People, 210 N.E.2d 533, 33 Ill.2d 121 (Ill. 1965)
• Decision Date: 28 September 1965
• Docket Number: No. 38664,38664
• Parties: William H. McDOWELL, Jr., Plaintiff in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error.

Page 533

210 N.E.2d 533

33 Ill.2d 121

William H. McDOWELL, Jr., Plaintiff in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error.

No. 38664.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Sept. 28, 1965.

Mitchell & Green, Murphysboro, for plaintiff in error.

William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Richard E. Richman, State's Atty., Murphysboro (Fred G. Leach and William A. Bomp, Asst. Attys. Gen., of counsel), for defendant in error.

KLINGBIEL, Chief Justice.

In 1958 William H. McDowell, Jr., then twenty-eight years of age, was charged with the crime of armed robbery. On a plea of guilty he was sentenced by the circuit court of Jackson County, under the Habitual Criminal Act, (Ill.Rev.Stat.1957, chap. 38, par. 603.1 et seq.) to imprisonment for a term of twenty-five to forty years. In 1962 he filed this petition in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis under section 72 of the Civil Practice Act, (Ill.Rev.Stat.1961, chap. 110, par. 72.) seeking relief also under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1961, chap. 38, par. 826 et seq.) He claimed in substance, that he was not sane and that his constitutional rights were violated because the court failed to hold a sanity hearing before accepting the plea of guilty. After hearing evidence on this question the court denied the petition, and the petitioner seeks direct review in this court.

The evidence shows a long criminal record, frequent confinement in correctional and penal institutions, and an extensive history of antisocial behavior. It also shows a number of psychiatric examinations. In 1957 he was committed to a State hospital as a person in need of mental treatment, and after his discharge he voluntarily entered another one where he remained for twelve days. He was discharged with a diagnosis of having a sociopathic personality disturbance. No psychosis was reported. During his confinement for the present offense he was placed and retained in the psychiatric division. While several of his actions were classed as attention getting mechanisms-by his own admissions he was putting on 'a bug act'-he twice attempted suicide and was found in need of psychiatric care.

Enough has been related to show that had the appropriate issue been passed on the court might well have found ground for a bona fide doubt of defendant's sanity. But the proper issue to be determined on a petition of the present kind was neither presented nor decided. The pertinent rules of law are well established. When, before or during trial, facts are brought to the attention of the court which raise a bona fide doubt of defendant's sanity a duty arises to cause a sanity hearing to be held as provided by law. (People v. Burson, 11 Ill.2d 360, 143 N.E.2d 239; Brown v. People, 8 Ill.2d 540, 134 N.E.2d 760; see also, People v. Robinson, 22 Ill.2d 162, 167, 174 N.E.2d 820.) When such facts existed at that time but the trial judge was not apprised of them, the appropriate remedy is a petition in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis pursuant to section 72 of the Civil Practice Act. (People v. Anderson, 31 Ill.2d 262, 201 N.E.2d 394; Costas v. People, 9 Ill.2d 534, 138 N.E.2d 468.) The issue presented by such a petition is whether facts existed which required a hearing, not whether defendant was sane or insane, as the court undertook to decide in the case...