People ex rel. Wakefield v. Montgomery

• Decision Date: 18 February 1937
• Docket Number: No. 23816.,23816.
• Citation: People ex rel. Wakefield v. Montgomery, 365 Ill. 478, 6 N.E.2d 868 (Ill. 1937)
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. WAKEFIELD v. MONTGOMERY.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

365 Ill. 478

6 N.E.2d 868

PEOPLE ex rel. WAKEFIELD

v.MONTGOMERY.

No. 23816.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 18, 1937.

Original petition for writ of habeas corpus by the People, on the relation of Lester Wakefield, against Joe E. Montgomery, Warden of the State Penitentiary.

Writ denied.

Milo D. Yelvington, of Newton, for relator.

Otto Kerner, Atty. Gen., and A. B. Dennis, of Danville, for respondent.

FARTHING, Justice.

The People, on the relation of Lester Wakefield, filed an original petition in this court for a writ of habeas corpus directed to Joe E. Montgomery, warden of the Illinois State Penitentiary at Menard, asking for the discharge of relator, who is imprisoned there under a mittimus from the circuit court of Jasper county. The issue presented was raised by respondent's motion to dismiss the petition.

Relator was convicted of statutory rape, but the jury by its verdict failed to fix the term of his imprisonment, as required by the Criminal Code. 38 S.H.A. § 801; Ill.Rev.Stat. 1935, c. 38, par. 795. On May 1, 1935, the court entered judgment sentencing relator to the penitentiary for an indeterminate term of from one year to life. He contends that the court had no jurisdiction to enter a judgment sentencing him to the penitentiary, and that its judgment is therefore void. Respondent contends that the judgment is merely erroneous and is not reviewable by habeas corpus.

The writ of habeas corpus may not be used as a writ of error to review a judgment which may be erroneous but is not void. People v. Sullivan, 363 Ill. 34, 39, 1 N.E.(2d) 206;People v. Kelly, 352 Ill. 567, 186 N.E. 188, 189;People v. Hazard, 356 Ill. 448, 191 N.E. 54. This rule goes to the extent, in such a proceeding, that no error of law or fact committed by the court can be reviewed or relieved against, leading up to the final judgment and sentence. The findings of the court upon every question of fact, including the question whether or not the evidence sustainsthe judgment and sentence, is absolutely conclusive and binding in habeas corpus proceedings, as are also all rulings of the court upon other questions of law-whether the same be in regard to the admissibility of evidence or the sufficiency or legality of the defendant's defense, whether general or special, or as to the validity of the statute under which he was prosecuted and sentenced, or as to whether or not the statute had been repealed. People v. Hazard, supra; People v. Kelly, supra. The question before us is, Was the judgment void or merely erroneous?

People v. Kelly, supra, was an original mandamus action filed in this court to expunge an order entered by the criminal court of Cook county discharging a prisoner on habeas corpus. The prisoner had been convicted of armed robbery in the circuit court of Champaign county and sentenced to the penitentiary for life instead of for the indeterminate sentence provided by statute. The propriety of awarding the writ of mandamus depended on whether the judgment and sentence of the circuit court of Champaign county were void. In holding that they were not void but merely erroneous we said: ‘In determining whether or not an excessive sentence will render a judgment of conviction void so as to entitle a defendant to a release in a habeas corpus proceeding, the test is whether or not the sentence is of a different character than that authorized by law to be imposed for the crime of which the accused has been found guilty. If, upon a conviction for robbery, the committing court had sentenced the accused to be hanged, the judgment would be void because the penalty would be of a different character than the one fixed by the law. In re Fanton, 55 Neb. 703, 76 N.W. 447,70 Am.St.Rep. 418; Ex parte Burden, 92 Miss. 14, 45 So. 1,...