People v. Adkins
| Decision Date | 22 November 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 41387,41387 |
| Citation | 242 N.E.2d 258,41 Ill.2d 297 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Jimmie M. ADKINS, Appellant. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
John Unger, Danville, appointed by the court, for appellant.
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and John P. O'Rourke, State's Atty., Danville (Arthur J. Inman, Asst. State's Atty., and Fred G. Leach, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel), for appellee.
Two indictments returned on January 16, 1968, in the circuit court of Vermilion County charged Jimmie M. Adkins, the defendant, with burglaries and grand thefts. Represented by the public defender, Adkins pleaded guilty and made application for probation. It was stipulated that the hearing to be had on the question of probation was to be considered also as a hearing on the question of aggravation or mitigation of the offenses. The trial court on March 18, 1968, after a hearing and a review of the probation officer's report denied the application for probation and sentenced the defendant to a term of from one to three years. Several days later the public defender filed a post-conviction petition in behalf of Adkins which alleged a substantial denial of his rights under the United States and Illinois constitutions. The trial court allowed the People's motion to dismiss the petition and directed the public defender to continue his representation of Adkins upon the appeal to this court.
The presentence report furnished the trial court by the probation office was a typical report of this kind, which contained pertinent background material concerning the defendant, including his family history and his work record. Fingerprint sheets from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Illinois Department of Public Safety recording Adkin's involvements with law enforcement authorities were attached and the report noted that he had been previously placed on probation following another conviction. It related that he had admitted other thefts, with which he was not charged, to officers while in custody. The report did not recommend probation. A copy of the report was given the defendant and when he was called to testify at the hearing by his counsel he related that the report was inaccurate in stating he had been expelled from school. It was inaccurate, too, he said in stating that his family had moved from Illinois to Indiana because of his problems. He had confessed to offenses not charged in the indictments here, he testified, because officers had told him it would 'make it pretty easy' on him. The State's Attorney in his cross-examination of the defendant brought out, over the objection of the public defender, some of the details of the offenses charged in the indictments to which he had pleaded guilty. The prosecutor also, over objection, after ascertaining that Adkins had reviewed the Federal Bureau of Investigation's criminal record sheet attached to the probation officer's report, in effect, had its accuracy verified by the appellant.
The defendant states that basically a single question is involved, and that concerns the 'quality' of evidence required in a presentence hearing. More precisely, the question presented is whether in determining the punishment to be imposed following conviction, the information secured by the trial court to aid in that determination must conform to legal standards required of evidence introduced in a trial where the issue is the guilt of the accused. It is contended that the presentencing hearing here, in that it did not conform to such standards, denied the defendant the right to confront and examine witnesses against him in violation of rights assured by sections 2 and 9 of article II of the constitution of Illinois, S.H.A. and the 6th and 14th amendments to the constitution of the United States.
Distinctions have traditionally been drawn between the evidential procedure in a trial to determine the question of the guilt of the accused and the procedure to determine appropriate punishment for the convicted. In Williams v. People of State of New York, 337 U.S. 241, 69 S.Ct. 1079, 93 L.Ed. 1337, the trial court, in stating reasons for imposing the death penalty, remarked that it had considered not only the evidence on which a jury had convicted the defendant but had viewed this evidence in the light of additional information obtained through the court's probation department and 'through other sources.' A contention, as that of the defendant here, was made that due process was denied. The Supreme Court in holding that the sentencing procedure did not violate due process said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Houston
...420, 421 (1978). The scope of inquiry before sentencing occurs was addressed by the Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Adkins, 41 Ill.2d 297, 300-01, 242 N.E.2d 258, 260-61 (1968): "(T)he judge in determining the character and extent of punishment is not limited to considering only informa......
-
People v. Berger
... ... 38, pars. 1005-1-1 through 1005-9-3), which deals with sentencing, and in the court's earlier opinions. The court specifically refers to People v. Adkins (1968), 41 Ill.2d 297, 242 N.E.2d 258, for guidelines. In Adkins, the court emphasized that a sentencing judge has wide discretion as to ... Page 926 ... [65 Ill.Dec. 611] sources and types of evidence used to assist him in determining the kind and extent of punishment to be imposed and that, ... ...
-
People v. Rivera
...was apparently not one which included jury participation in the sentencing phase of noncapital cases. This court, in People v. Adkins, 41 Ill.2d 297, 242 N.E.2d 258 (1968), made it clear that sentencing in noncapital cases was a procedure distinct from the adversary proceeding of a jury tri......
-
People v. Foster
...fixed by the law.' " (People v. Eddmonds (1984), 101 Ill.2d 44, 65, 77 Ill.Dec. 724, 461 N.E.2d 347, quoting People v. Adkins (1968), 41 Ill.2d 297, 300, 242 N.E.2d 258.) The only requirement for admission is that the evidence be reliable and relevant (People v. Perez (1985), 108 Ill.2d 70,......