People ex rel. Buchalter v. Ragen
| Decision Date | 20 October 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 30051.,30051. |
| Citation | 397 Ill. 515,74 N.E.2d 868 |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. BUCHALTER v. RAGEN. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
See 68 S.Ct. 95.
Original petition for writ of habeas corpus by the People, on the relation of William Buchalter, against Joseph E. Ragen, Warden of Illinois State Penitentiary, to obtain relator's discharge from the penitentiary.
Relator remanded to the custody of respondent.
William Buchalter, pro se.
George F. Barrett, Atty. Gen. (William C. Wines, of Chicago, of counsel), for respondant.
William Buchalter, by an original petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in this court against Joseph E. Ragen, Warden of Illinois State Penitentiary at Joliet, seeks to obtain his discharge from the penitentiary. The writ issued, respondent made a return, and relator demurred. The cause was submitted on the record thus made.
At the September term, 1933, of the criminal court of Cook county, an indictment was returned charging relator with the crimes of burglary and receiving stolen property. Each of the burglary counts concluded with allegations calculated to charge relator with being an habitual criminal. In addition to the usual burglary allegations it was alleged that an indictment charging relator with larceny of a motor vehicle had been returned at a former term of court; that judgment on a verdict had been entered against relator, finding him guilty of larceny of personal property of the value of $800 and sentencing him to the Illinois State Reformatory. Thereafter, relator was found guilty of burglary as charged in the indictment, judgment was entered on the verdict, and he was sentenced to the penitentiary for the term of his natural life. The sentence was for the maximum term provided for the crime of burglary, in compliance with section I of the Habitual Criminal Act. Smith-Hurd Stat.1933, chap. 38, par. 602.
Relator contends that his sentence is void because the allegations of his prior conviction, contained in the indictment, were not sufficient to charge him with being an habitual criminal. He further claims that larceny of a motor vehicle was not one of the crimes enumerated in section I of the Habitual Criminal Act, before the amendment of 1941, and that the court was without jurisdiction to sentence him under that act. The crime charged was that of burglary, which the criminal court of Cook county had jurisdiction to try. It appears from the petition and the return in this proceeding that the criminal court had jurisdiction of the person of relator. There was, therefore, jurisdiction of the subject matter and also of the person. The indictment was not void and its sufficiency cannot be considered in a habeas corpus proceeding. People ex rel. Ross v. Becker, 382 Ill. 404, 47 N.E.2d 475. Where a court has jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Boreman
...case, what was there said, while unnecessary to a decision in that case, was fully approved in the case of People ex rel. Buchalter v. Ragen, 397 Ill. 515, 74 N.E.2d 868, 869, where the question whether a defendant whose sentence under a prior conviction was to the reformatory instead of th......
-
Geach v. Olsen
... ... As the Supreme Court of Illinois said in People ex rel. Ross v. Becker, 382 Ill. 404, 410, 47 N.E. 2d 475, 478, where a ... In People ex rel. Buchalter v. Ragen, 397 Ill. 515, 516, 74 N.E.2d 868, the Supreme Court of Illinois ... ...
-
People ex rel. Totten v. Frye
...v. Prystalski, 358 Ill. 198, 192 N.E. 908; People ex rel. Ross v. Becker, 382 Ill. 404, 410, 47 N.E.2d 475; People ex rel. Buchalter v. Ragen, 397 Ill. 515, 74 N.E.2d 868.) The remedy of Habeas corpus is not available to raise claimed errors of a nonjurisdictional nature which occurred duri......
-
People v. Pitts
...under the prior conviction. Obviously it does not apply to a case occurring years before the amendment. People ex rel. Buchalter v. Ragen, 397 Ill. 515, 74 N.E.2d 868. We find no merit in the claims of the plaintiff in error, and the judgment of the criminal court of Cook County is accordin......