People ex rel. Jefferson v. Brantley
| Decision Date | 26 November 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 42199,42199 |
| Citation | 44 Ill.2d 31,253 N.E.2d 378 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE ex rel., Arthur Fillmore JEFFERSON, Appellant, v. Elza BRANTLEY, Warden, Appellee. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Arthur Fillmore Jefferson, pro se.
William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Springfield (Fred G. Leach, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel), for appellee.
This is an appeal in a Habeas corpus proceeding. On March 2, 1966, the relator, Arthur Fillmore Jefferson, was convicted of burglary and sentenced to the Illinois State Penitentiary for a term of not less than two nor more than ten years. He was subsequently paroled, and on February 20, 1968, was returned to Menard Penitentiary pursuant to an arrest warrant issued by the warded of the penitentiary charging him with a parole violation. In April, 1968, a hearing was held by the Parole and Pardon Board wherein Jefferson was declared a violator of his parole as of February 4, 1968, and his case for further parole was continued until March, 1969. On that date he was denied parole and the case again continued to March, 1970. Thereafter, Jefferson filed a petition for a writ of Habeas corpus in the circuit court of Randolph County. The petition was denied and this appeal followed.
Relator contends (1) that the Parole and Pardon Board exceeded its jurisdiction in continuing his case for more than nine months; (2) the arrest warrant was issued without probable cause; and (3) he was denied due process because he did not have a hearing to determine whether he was a violator.
Section 123--1(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Ill.Rev.Stat.1967, ch. 38, par. 123--1) in part provides: 'The Parole and Pardon Board within the Department of Public Safety shall be the paroling authority * * * and shall make regulations not inconsistent with law governing the issuance, supervision and revocation of parole of persons in the custody of the Department of Public Safety.' Rule 12 of the Rules and Regulations of the Parole and Pardon Board provides that if the board determines that a prisoner is not a fit person to serve his sentence outside the penitentiary, a parole shall be denied and such further order entered as in the judgment of the members is deemed warranted. At hearings of the board in April, 1968, and March, 1969, parole was denied and further order was entered to continue the matter for one year. There is nothing in the statute or rules which would disallow a continuance for more than nine months. Therefore the one-year continuance was not improper.
Relator's next two contentions involve constitutional issues. It is argued that the warrant under which he was retaken was issued without probable cause in violation of the fourth amendment to the Federal constitution, and that he was denied due process because he did not have a hearing on the question of whether he violated his parole. To resolve these questions, the legal status of a parolee must first be determined. It has been held that until final discharge a prisoner during parole should be considered in the legal custody of the officers of the Department of Public Safety (People ex rel. Richardson v. Ragen, 400 Ill. 191, 79 N.E.2d 479; People ex rel. Castle v. Spivey, 10 Ill.2d 586, 141 N.E.2d 321). The State has jurisdiction over the relator until he has served the maximum term of his sentence or until the sentence has been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Atkins v. City of Chicago
...730 ILCS 5/3–14–2(c), –2(c–1); People ex rel. Johnson v. Pate, 47 Ill.2d 172, 265 N.E.2d 144, 146 (1970); People ex rel. Jefferson v. Brantley, 44 Ill.2d 31, 253 N.E.2d 378, 379 (1969). Against this it can be argued that to entitle a person who is arrested for violating parole and claims mi......
-
People v. Lang
...omission or event which has subsequently taken place." (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 65, par. 22; see also People ex rel. Jefferson v. Brantley (1969), 44 Ill.2d 31, 34, 253 N.E.2d 378; People ex rel. Skinner v. Randolph (1966), 35 Ill.2d 589, 590, 221 N.E.2d 279; People ex rel. Castle v. Spiv......
-
People v. Eastin
...is reasonable. This requirement has most recently been reiterated in Coolidge, supra. We have examined both People ex rel. Jefferson v. Brantley, 44 Ill.2d 31, 253 N.E.2d 378 and Ch. 108, § 204(e) Ill. Rev'd. Stat.1969, both of which deal with the status of a parolee, and find nothing in th......
-
District 1199E, Nat. Union of Hosp. and Health Care Emp., Div. of R.W.D.S.U., AFL-CIO v. Johns Hopkins Hosp.
... ... part of therapy to patients in a hospital, particularly for people who are dying and loved ones want to come to see them and where it's ... Rel. Board v. Evangelical Deaconess Soc., 242 Wis. 78, 7 N.W.2d 590 (1943) ... ...