People ex rel. Clancy v. Graydon
| Decision Date | 12 April 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 18603.,18603. |
| Citation | 160 N.E. 748,329 Ill. 398 |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. CLANCY v. GRAYDON, Sheriff. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Original application by the People, on the relation of Joseph Clancy, for a writ of habeas corpus against Charles E. Graydon, Sheriff of Cook county.
Petitioner discharged.Allister S. Langille and Charles M. McDonnell, both of Chicago, for petitioner.
Oscar E. Carlstrom, Atty. Gen., Robert E. Crowe, State's atty., of Chicago, and Roy D. Johnson, of Springfield (Q. J. Chott, of Chicago, of counsel), for respondent.
Joseph Clancy filed his original petition in this court for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that he was illegally restrained of his liberty by respondent, Charles E. Graydon, sheriff of Cook county. A writ of habeas corpus was ordered issued, and was served upon respondent. Respondent made return to the writ, in which he alleged that Clancy was in his custody as sheriff of Cook county by virtue of a mittimus issued out of the superior court of Cook county dated June 9, 1925, for contempt of court. By consent of the parties evidence was taken before a commissioner, and the cause was heard in this court on the petition, answer, the evidence taken before the commissioner, and printed briefs suggestions and arguments of the parties.
There is no dispute as to the facts in this case, the question in controversy being the application of the law to the facts. The evidence shows that on May 2, 1924, Joseph Clancy was sentenced upon an indictment for conspiracy to be imprisoned in the county jail of Cook county for the term of six months, and that thereafter a mittimus was issued upon said judgment and placed in the hands of the sheriff of Cook county for execution. Clancy sued out a writ of error from the Appellate Court for the First District. A supersedeas was granted by that court, and Clancy was released upon a supersedeas bond. The judgment of the criminal court was affirmed by the Appellate Court on December 28, 1925, and a mandate of affirmance was filed in the office of the clerk of the criminal court on November 27, 1926. On June 9, 1925, Clancy was in the superior court of Cook county adjudged guilty of contempt of court, and sentenced to be committed to the county jail of Cook county for such contempt for a period of six months, and on the same day a mittimus was issued by the clerk of the superior court and delivered to the sheriff, who on the same day executed it by delivering Clancy to the jailer of Cook county. Thereafter Clancy sued out a writ if error from the Appellate Court for the First District, and on June 13, 1925, he was released from the custody of the sheriff upon a supersedeas bond. On February 2, 1926, the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court, and thereafter a mandate of the Appellate Court showing the affirmance of the judgment was filed in the office of the clerk of the superior court on August 23, 1926. January 27, 1927, the sheriff of Cook county had in his possession two writs for Clancy, one on the judgment of the criminal court directing him to confine Clancy in the county jail of Cook county for the term of six months, issued on the third of May, 1924, and one issued out of the superior court of Cook county on the contempt judgment, dated June 9, 1925, commanding him to keep Clancy in his custody in the county jail of Cook county for a period of six months from that date. On January 27, 1927, a deputy sheriff arrested Clancy by virtue of the mittimus issued out of the superior court for contempt of court, read the mittimus to him, and turned him over to other officers, by whom he was taken to the county jail, and there imprisoned. On the same day a return was made by a deputy sheriff upon the mittimus which had been issued out of the criminal court in the conspiracy case, stating that he had executed the same ‘by delivering the body of the within named defendant to the jailer of Cook county this 27th day of January, A. D. 1927.’ On June 8, 1927, respondent was by a private citizen served with a certified copy of the mandate of the Appellate Court affirming the judgment of the superior court in the contempt case. Clancy remained in jail from January 27, 1927, until the 20th day of July, 1927, when he was released upon a bond in a habeas corpus proceeding before one of the judges of the superior court of cook county, upon which he remained at large until the 5th day of October, 1927, when he surrendered himself to the sheriff in open court, and was again committed to the county jail, where he still remained at the time of the suing out of this writ.
The only question involved in this case is whether or not the sentences of the superior court and criminal court ran concurrently. The rule of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Brown
...court construction or supplementation by a nonjudicial or ministerial officer to ascertain its meaning. (People ex rel. Clancy v. Graydon (1928), 329 Ill. 398, 402, 160 N.E. 748; People v. Combs (1940), 304 Ill.App. 467, 469-70, 26 N.E.2d 668.) Defendant states it is impossible to ascertain......
-
Town Of Purcellville v. Potts
...of confinement run concurrently, in the absence of specific provisions in the judgment to the contrary, * * *." People v. Graydon, 329 Ill. 398, 401, 160 N.E. 748, 749. See, also, 8 R.C.L. 240. In Wright v. Youell, 160 Va. 925, 927, 168 S.E. 339, 340, this court applied the general rule in ......
-
People ex rel. Hesley v. Ragen
...697, this court, said: ‘The respondent also contends that Brown was entitled to the benefit of the rule stated in People (ex rel.) v. Graydon, 329 Ill. 398, 160 N.E. 748, which is that where a defendant is sentenced to the same place of confinement by two or more judgments of conviction the......
-
People v. Ferguson
...run concurrently, in the absence of specific provisions to the contrary appearing in the judgment order. People ex rel. Clancy v. Graydon, 329 Ill. 398, 160 N.E. 748. A judgment entered in a case of cumulative punishment must be of such certainty that the commencement of the second and the ......