People ex rel. Martin v. Mallary

• Decision Date: 10 April 1902
• Citation: 63 N.E. 508,195 Ill. 582
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. MARTIN v. MALLARY. SAME ex rel. DORSEY v. SAME.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

195 Ill. 582

63 N.E. 508

PEOPLE ex rel. MARTIN

v.MALLARY.

SAME ex rel. DORSEY

v.SAME.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 10, 1902.

Habeas corpus by the people, on the relation of Cornelius Martin, and the same proceedings on the relation of Ralph Dorsey, to M. M. Mallary, as superintendent of the state reformatory, to secure release from custody. Writs dismissed.

William O. La Monte, for relator Martin.

J. Gray Lucas, for relator Dorsey.

H. J. Hamlin, Atty. Gen., Chas. S. Deneen, State's Atty., F. L. Barnett, Asst. State's Atty., for respondent.

CARTER, J.

These were writs of habeas corpus issued by this court, directed to the respondent, the superintendent of the Illinois State Reformatory at Pontiac, inquiring into the cause of the detention and imprisonment, the one of Cornelius Martin and the other of Ralph Dorsey. The petition and return to the writ as to Cornelius Martin show that he was convicted of burglary by the circuit court of Marion county in August, 1893, was found to be of the age of 20 years, and was sentenced to the reformatory for an indeterminate term, and was received into that institution on August 5, 1893. As to Ralph Dorsey, it was shown that on the 30th day of April, 1897, he was convicted of burglary by the criminal court of Cook county, and was then found to be of the age of 19 years, and was sentenced to said reformatory for an indeterminate term, and was thereupon delivered into the custody of said reformatory. Soon after April 18, 1900, said Cornelius Martin was, by the action of the board of managers of said reformatory, transferred to the Southern Illinois Penitentiary at Chester, as shown by the following record of their action in the premises, made an exhibit to their return: ‘State of Illinois. Illinois State Reformatory. Be it remembered, that on April 18, 1900, the same being one of the meeting days of the board of managers of the Illinois State Reformatory, and the said board being in session for the transaction of business, the following proceedings were had in relation to Cornelius Martin, Reg. No. 228, an inmate of said institution, and entered of record, in the words and figures following, viz.: ‘Whereas, section 15 of ‘An act to establish the Illinois State Reformatory and to make an appropriation therefor,’ as amended and in force July 1, 1897, provides that the board of managers of this institution may transfer to the penitentiary of the proper district any apparrently incorrigible prisoners whose presence in the reformatory appears to be detrimental to the same; and whereas, the inmates hereafter named and directed to be transferred to the Southern Illinois Penitentiary at Chester is incorrigible, and his presence seriously detrimental to its success as a reformatory, as has been shown to our satisfaction: Therefore it is resolved, that the superintendent of this institution be, and the same is hereby, directed to transfer to the Illinois State Penitentiary at Chester, as soon as practicable, to be there held in accordance with law, the following prisoners: Cornelius Martin. And be it further resolved, that he is hereby directed to deliver to the warden of said penitentiary, with said prisoners, the orders or processes of court upon which said prisoners were committed to this institution, also certify to the county from which they were committed, the date of their receipt, and a copy of this resolution under seal. And be it further resolved, that the warden of said penitentiary be, and is hereby, required and commanded to take and keep prisoners from and after their delivery to him until paroled or discharged as authorized by law, or recalled to this instituion by the board of managers, in accordance with law, provided such term of imprisonment shall not exceed the maximum term of imprisonment for the offense for which said inmates were convicted and sentenced.'' And soon after August 18, 1900, said Ralph Dorsey was, by the action of said board, transferred to the Illinois State Penitentiary at Joliet, under similar resolution and proceedings, also entered of record, as in the case of Cornelius Martin, and for the same cause. Afterward-soon after January 8, 1902-said Martin and said Dorsey were returned to said reformatory in pursuance of the following proceedings of said board of managers, as appears by the return to said writs: ‘On motion of Manager Kinney it was ordered that the superintendent be authorized to return all boys who have been transferred from the reformatory to the Joliet and Chester penitentiaries to the reformatory, subject to the writs of habeas corpus already served, and that these boys' records be examined, and that they be allowed credit for all the good time made in the reformatory and good time earned in the penitentiaries.’ The relators had been returned to and were in said reformatory when the petitions were filed in this court, and the returns to the writs show that they are detained there in each case by virtue of the mittimus issued in due form out of the court in which the relator was convicted. The grounds upon which the discharge of the relators is demanded are that said section 15 of the act to establish the Illinois State Reformatory is unconstitutional and void, and that the transfer of the relators to the penitentiary was a voluntary escape; that the relators could not lawfully be retaken, and that, therefore, their subsequent detention by virtue of the mittimus became and was without authority of law.

Said section 15 is as follows: ‘The board of managers shall have the power to transfer, temporarily, to the penitentiary of the proper district, any prisoner who, subsequent to his committal, shall be shown to their satisfaction to have been more than twenty-one years of age, or to have been previously convicted of crime, and may also transfer any incorrigible prisoner, whose presence in the reformatory appears to be seriously detrimental to the well-being of the institution. And such managers may, by written requisition, require the return to the reformatory of any person who may have been so transferred. Each prisoner so transferred to the penitentiary shall be held therein, subject to such rules and regulations provided by the commissioners of said penitentiary in harmony with this act, unless re-called to the reformatory, as herein provided by the board of managers.’ Hurd's Rev. St. 1899, p. 1380. The question has been raised by the attorney general and the state's attorney at the threshold whether habeas corpus will lie to test the constitutionality of the law under which the detention of the relators is justified by the respondent. It is said that this court has decided in People v. Jonas, 173 Ill. 316, 50 N. E. 1051, that it will not. The writ was refused in that case because the relator was imprisoned by virtue of a judgment of conviction rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction to decide all questions involved, including the constitutionality of the law under which the conviction was had, and because the relator in that case could have had all errors corrected by appeal, including any erroneous decision as to the validity of the statute; that it would be in contravention of the statute to allow parties convicted of offenses by courts having jurisdiction to determine all questions involved in the proceeding to substitute the remedy by habeas corpus for the ordinary remedies for the correction of errors by appeal or writ of error. In the case at bar the question affecting the legality of the further detention and imprisonment of the relators did not arise before their conviction and sentence, but afterward; and in these applications the validity of the statute under the proceedings which were had in the circuit court is not attacked, and no question of error in those proceedings is attempted to be raised. Besides, the events which, it is claimed, entitle the relators to their discharge, did not happen until after the time in which they could have sued out writs of error, and the cases of the relators fall within the second paragraph of section 22 of the habeas corpus act (Hurd's Rev. St. 1899, p. 951), which provides that ‘where, though the original imprisonment was lawful, yet by some act, omission or event which has subsequently taken place, the party has become entitled to his discharge.’ The sole question in this case is whether the act or event set forth in the petition, and also in the return to the writ, and which took place after judgment, and after the relators had been delivered into the custody of said reformatory, entitles the relators to their discharge.

The respondent justifies the said act of the board of managers and of himself by the authority attempted to be conferred by said section 15. While it may be, from the view we take of these cases, that they could be decided without considering the validity of section 15, still we cannot say here, as we did in People v. Illinois State Reformatory, 148 Ill. 413, 36 N. E. 76,23 L. R. A. 139, that the question of the constitutionality of said section is not properly before us. The relator in that case had not been transferred to the penitentiary under said section, while in these cases the relators...