People v. Bain
| Decision Date | 08 March 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72--51,72--51 |
| Citation | People v. Bain, 293 N.E.2d 758, 10 Ill.App.3d 363 (Ill. App. 1973) |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frank BAIN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Appellate Court of Illinois |
John F. McNichols, Dist. Defender, Illinois Defender Project, Springfield, for defendant-appellant; Bruce L. Herr, Staff Atty., Springfield, of counsel.
Robert H. Rice, State's Atty., Belleville, for plaintiff-appellee.
This is an appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Clair County dismissing a post conviction petition without the evidentiary hearing, which had been mandated by the Supreme Court of Illinois.
Although numerous extensions have been granted appellee for the filing of its brief, none has been timely filed. The cause would be a proper one for a summary reversal, however, we elect to dispose of the matter on the merits.
Defendant entered a plea of guilty to a charge of burglary and was sentenced to a term of one to ten years in the penitentiary. Subsequently, defendant filed a post-conviction petition, but the circuit court sustained the People's motion to dismiss the petition, on July 10, 1969. On appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court, the Attorney General of the State of Illinois confessed error in the post-conviction proceedings. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Clair County and ordered that an evidentiary hearing be conducted by the circuit court.
The circuit court appointed counsel pursuant to the mandate, and a petition identical to the one previously filed was filed with a brief, an expanded petition and affidavits and exhibits on May 5, 1971 while defendant was still incarcerated in the penitentiary.
On July 16, 1971 the court ordered the People to file an answer and set an evidentiary hearing for July 29, 1971. On July 20, 1971 the People filed an answer moving to dismiss the post-conviction petition on the grounds that it failed to state a cause of action under the Post Conviction Hearing Act. The cause was called for hearing on July 29, and the People moved for a continuance which was granted and the cause continued until September 10, 1971. After lengthy delay sought by the State on January 14, 1972 the cause was called for hearing, at which time the State moved to dismiss, advising the court that petitioner had been paroled. The court dismissed the petition, from which order of dismissal this appeal has been perfected.
Any questions arising from the hearing held on July 10, 1969 in the circuit court have been rendered moot by the Supreme Court's reversal of the circuit court's judgment. When a judgment is reversed by a reviewing court, the reviewing court's judgment of reversal is final upon all questions decided; those questions are no longer open to consideration, Schulenburg v. Signatrol, Inc., 37 Ill.2d 352, 226 N.E.2d 624.
The trial court's dismissal of the Petition on January 14, 1972 was in direct opposition to the specific mandate to hold an evidentiary hearing. A court to which a cause is remanded can only take such action as conforms to the judgment of the reviewing court. (Town of Kaneville v. Meredith, 361 Ill. 556, 198 N.E. 857.) In Thomas v. Durchslag, 410 Ill. 363, 102 N.E.2d 114, the Supreme Court stated:
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
People v. Correa
...43 Ill.App.3d 818, 2 Ill.Dec. 493, 357 N.E.2d 660; People v. Smalley (1975), 33 Ill.App.3d 677, 338 N.E.2d 193; People v. Bain (1973), 10 Ill.App.3d 363, 293 N.E.2d 758.) The State also acknowledges that the appellate court in People v. Montes (1980), 90 Ill.App.3d 355, 45 Ill.Dec. 639, 412......
-
People v. Baker
...(1975), 33 Ill.App.3d 863, 865, 338 N.E.2d 487; People v. Street (1974), 19 Ill.App.3d 541, 311 N.E.2d 796; People v. Bain (1973), 10 Ill.App.3d 363, 364, 293 N.E.2d 758; Hamilton v. Faulkner (1968), 96 Ill.App.2d 415, 418, 238 N.E.2d 631; see Hornof v. Kroger Co. (1968), 40 Ill.2d 545, 546......
-
PSL Realty Co. v. Granite Inv. Co.
...Berry v. Lewis (1963), 27 Ill.2d 61, 187 N.E.2d 688; Thomas v. Durchslag (1951), 410 Ill. 363, 102 N.E.2d 114; People v. Bain (1973), 10 Ill.App.3d 363, 293 N.E.2d 758. The mandate directed the trial court to call for pleadings upon the issue of plaintiffs' entitlement to receive from funds......
-
People v. Abata
...court's judgment is final upon all issues decided, and those issues may no longer be decided by the trial court. (People v. Bain (1973), 10 Ill.App.3d 363, 364, 293 N.E.2d 758.) Once an issue is decided so as to become the law of the case, it is error for the trial court to hold a new heari......