People v. Armes
| Decision Date | 22 June 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 40222,40222 |
| Citation | 37 Ill.2d 457,227 N.E.2d 745 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. John H. ARMES, Appellant |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Richard O. Hart, Benton, appointed by the court, for appellant.
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Joseph W. Hickman, State's Atty., Benton (Fred G. Leach, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel), for appellee.
The petitioner, John H. Armes, was convicted of forgery after a jury trial in the circuit court of Franklin County and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of 7 to 14 years. This court, on writ of error, affirmed his conviction in 28 Ill.2d 83, 190 N.E.2d 812. Petitioner now appeals to this court from an order of the trial court denying his petition for relief under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1965, chap. 38, par. 122--1 et seq.) He contends that the delay between the return of an indictment against him and commencement of his trial on September 26, 1960, deprived him of his constitutional right to a speedy trial. It is the State's contention that the doctrines of Res judicata or waiver preclude the petitioner from properly raising this issue here.
The petitioner did not move for discharge on the ground that he had been denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial prior to trial, at trial, nor in his post-trial motions. Nor did he present this constitutional argument in our direct review of his conviction.
The petition here was filed in the trial court on November 17, 1965. The State answered the petition after its motions to dismiss were denied by the trial court. Arguments by the public defender and the State's Attorney were heard and the court then denied the petition, from which denial the petitioner appeals.
The constitutional assurance of a speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused which must be and which has been accorded appropriate respect by this court. (See People v. Hryciuk, 36 Ill.2d 500, 224 N.E.2d 250; People v. Bryarly, 23 Ill.2d 313, 178 N.E.2d 326.) However, the constitutional right to a speedy trial is personal to the accused and it can be waived when the question of undue delay is not presented to the trial court. We illustrated this in People v. Taylor, 32 Ill.2d 165, 168, 204 N.E.2d 734, 736, when we stated: See also, People v. Bonds, 32 Ill.2d 94, 203 N.E.2d 884.
Too, it is not within the purpose of the Post-Conviction Hearing Act to have claims considered which could have been presented on a direct review of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Stewart, 77-13
...which would excuse the defendant's failure to raise the issues now presented either in the trial court or on appeal. People v. Armes (1967), 37 Ill.2d 457, 227 N.E.2d 745; People v. Agnello (1966), 35 Ill.2d 611, 221 N.E.2d 658 (where defendant waived issues of a defective indictment, his c......
-
People v. Lewis, 58910
...46 Ill.2d 569, 571, 264 N.E.2d 149; People v. Kamsler (1968), 39 Ill.2d 73, 74, 233 N.E.2d 415; [105 Ill.2d 251] People v. Armes (1967), 37 Ill.2d 457, 227 N.E.2d 745.) However, in numerous cases we have also held that res judicata cannot be mechanically applied to foreclose an inquiry whic......
-
People v. Teague, 57578
...where a contention might have been raised in the original appeal but was not, it is considered to have been waived. People v. Armes, 37 Ill.2d 457, 227 N.E.2d 745; People v. Collins, 39 Ill.2d 286, 235 N.E.2d 570. This application of the law is relaxed only where 'fundamental fairness' so d......
-
People v. Robinson
...which could have been presented on direct review of the conviction. (People v. Myers, 46 Ill.2d 270, 263 N.E.2d 113; People v. Armes, 37 Ill.2d 457, 227 N.E.2d 745.) Defendant does not here contend that he was denied a direct appeal because of the absence of a transcript in 1963 when he cou......