People ex rel. Palmer v. Twomey

• Decision Date: 26 January 1973
• Docket Number: No. 44683,44683
• Citation: 53 Ill.2d 479,292 N.E.2d 379
• Parties: The PEOPLE ex rel. Coba PALMER, Appellant, v. John J. TWOMEY, Warden, Appellee.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Page 379

292 N.E.2d 379

53 Ill.2d 479

The PEOPLE ex rel. Coba PALMER, Appellant, v. John J. TWOMEY, Warden, Appellee.

No. 44683.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Jan. 26, 1973.

Bruce L. Herr, of Defender Project, Springfield, for appellant.

William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Paul R. Welch, State's Atty., Bloomington (James B. Zagel, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel), for appellee.

GOLDENHERSH, Justice.

Petitioner, Coba Palmer, appeals from the judgment of the circuit court of McLean County dismissing, without an evidentiary hearing, his petition, filed Pro se, for a writ of Habeas corpus.

The record shows that in a bench trial petitioner was convicted of two counts of theft over $150 and sentenced to the penitentiary. He filed, Pro se, a 'Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus' in which it is alleged that the jurisdiction of the circuit court is invoked 'pursuant to Chapter 65, section 22 of the Illinois Revised Statutes.' In the petition it is further alleged that petitioner was deprived of his constitutional right to have the assistance of counsel at a preliminary hearing and during arraignment, and that the indictment upon which he was convicted is fatally defective in that two of the three counts were not signed by the foreman of the grand jury. Along with the petition, petitioner filed a motion for leave to proceed as a poor person, and an 'Affidavit of Poverty' in which he stated that he was without funds and unable to employ counsel.

The People moved to strike the petition, the motion was allowed and this appeal followed.

Petitioner contends that the circuit court erred in dismissing his petition for Habeas corpus without either appointing counsel or inquiring whether he desired the assistance of counsel. It is the position of the People that there is no right to appoiinted counsel in a Habeas corpus proceeding and the circuit court did not err in failing to appoint counsel to represent petitioner.

In People ex rel. Haven v. Macieiski, 38 Ill.2d 396, 231 N.E.2d 433, Haven filed a Pro se petition for a writ of Habeas corpus alleging various nonjurisdictional deprivations of constitutional rights resulting in his conviction. The circuit court dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing and without appointing counsel. In affirming the order of dismissal this court stated: 'The General Assembly has provided a remedy by which a prisoner may assert a claim that his conviction was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights. In a post-conviction proceeding (citation) the petitioner is entitled to the appointment of counsel, and to an evidentiary hearing if his post-conviction petition alleges facts that show a violation of his constitutional rights. But this court has uniformly held that the remedy of Habeas corpus is not available to review alleged errors of a nonjurisdictional nature, even though they involve a claim of denial of constitutional rights. (Citations.) In the present case it is not alleged that the circuit court of Macon County lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter or the person of the petitioner and there is no claim that any event has occurred since the judgment of conviction by which the petitioner has become entitled to his discharge. (Citation.) While the trial court could properly have disregarded the Habeas corpus label, and treated the document as a post-conviction petition, it was not required to do so, and its judgment dismissing the Habeas corpus petition was not erroneous.' 38 Ill.2d 396, 398, 231 N.E.2d at 434.

In People ex rel. Lewis v. Frye, 42 Ill.2d 58, 245 N.E.2d 483 (cert. denied, 396 U.S. 912, 90 S.Ct. 227, 24 L.Ed.2d 187) Lewis filed a Pro se petition for a writ of Habeas corpus alleging various nonjurisdictional deprivations of constitutional rights resulting in his conviction. The circuit court appointed counsel, and after a hearing the petition was denied. In affirming the judgment, this court said, 'We have consistently held that a court has jurisdiction to direct the release of a prisoner on Habeas corpus only where the judgment of the original trial court was void, Viz., rendered by a court lacking jurisdiction of the subject matter or the person of the defendant, or where there has been some occurrence subsequent to his conviction which entitles the prisoner to release. (Citations.) The remedy of Habeas corpus is not available to review errors of a nonjurisdictional nature, though they involve claims of denial of constitutional rights. (Citations.) Supplementing the relief available through an appeal, the General Assembly has provided a remedy of review under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (citation) specifically for one claiming that conviction was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights. While the trial court could have treated the petition here as a...