People v. Bassinger
| Decision Date | 11 May 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 30927.,30927. |
| Citation | 85 N.E.2d 758,403 Ill. 108 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. BASSINGER. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, St. Clair County; Alfred D. Reiss, judge.
Joseph Bassinger was convicted on three separate charges of rape, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
Joseph Bassinger, pro se.
George F. Barrett, Atty. Gen. and Richard T. Carter, State's Atty., of Belleville, for the People.
Plaintiff in error, Joseph Bassinger, was indicted by the grand jury of St. Clair County at the September term, 1936, on three separate charges of rape. On the three indictments returned plaintiff in error entered pleas of guilty. The causes are brought here on the common-law record which discloses that in each case, before judgment and sentence was rendered, the court fully advised the defendant as to his legal and constitutional rights and the consequences of his pleas of guilty; that plaintiff in error persisted in such pleas and was adjudged guilty of the crime of rape on each of the indictments returned. The record further discloses that before the entering of judgment and sentence evidence was heard by the court with statements of the parties in mitigation or aggravation of the offenses. After such proceedings, plaintiff in error was sentenced on each charge to the Illinois State Penitentiary for a term of 99 years and until duly discharged according to law.
The assigned errors are: (1) That plaintiff in error was denied due process of law for the reason he was indicted and sentenced under two separate indictments, one charging him with forcible rape and another with statutory rape without force on the same person; (2) that he was not furnished with counsel and was tried with such expedition that he was deprived of a fair and impartial trial; and (3) that the court erred in not properly advising plaintiff in error of the consequences of pleading guilty.
As to the first assignment of error we find returned against plaintiff in error two indictments, one alleging force and the other statutory rape of a girl under the age of 16 years. If he was guilty of two separate offenses against the same person, he could, if properly charged, have been found guilty of rape with force, and, on another offense, have been found guilty of statutory rape. The record does not disclose a case here where a defendant is charged with forcible and statutory rape in separate counts pertaining to one act as charged, which would have warranted an instruction as to the form of verdict requiring the jurors to specify upon which count they find the defendant guilty, but hinges on the sole question here as to whether or not he was guilty of two separate acts as charged in two separate indictments. Plaintiff in error in the instant case entered a plea of guilty to both indictments and the court could not have heard evidence of two offenses unless the evidence disclosed that two offenses had been committed. The record discloses the court, before accepting a plea on the indictments, advised the plaintiff in error as to his legal and constitutional rights and the consequences of a plea of guilty, and the court thereupon, on said pleas, adjudged plaintiff in error guilty of the felonious crime of rape in manner and form as charged in the indictments and found his age to be 38 years. Again, before plaintiff in error was sentenced on his plea, the court heard evidence and statements of the parties in extenuation or aggravation of said offenses, and, being fully advised in the premises, plaintiff in error was duly sentenced. Under all the circumstances here, no objections having been made in any way after a full and extended hearing, we hardly see how it could reasonably be said that plaintiff in error was not admitting his guilt as to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Stewart
... ... Roberson (1980), 83 Ill.App.3d 45, 49, 38 Ill.Dec. 259, 262, 403 N.E.2d 490, 493), and all reasonable intendments not contradicted by the record are to be taken in favor of the validity of the judgment (People v. Bassinger (1949), 403 Ill. 108, 85 N.E.2d 758, cert. denied (1949), 337 U.S. 960, 69 S.Ct. 1524, 93 L.Ed. 1759). Where the evidence in the record supports the imposition of either a Class X sentence or an extended term and the defendant has failed to request a statement of reasons for the sentence imposed, ... ...
-
People v. Thorpe
... ... It is a well established rule that "all reasonable intendments not contradicted by the record are to be taken in favor of the validity of the judgment." (People v. Bassinger, 403 Ill. 108, 111, 85 N.E.2d 758, 760 (1949)) It is also clear that "(e)rror is never presumed by a reviewing court, but must be affirmatively shown by the record." Flynn v. Vancil, 41 Ill.2d 236, 241-42, 242 N.E.2d 237, 241 (1968) ... The defendant has not sustained his burden ... ...
- Jacobson v. Village of Wilmette
-
People v. Roberson
...any prompting. We are not permitted to draw negative inferences from a record. The supreme court stated in People v. Bassinger (1949), 403 Ill. 108, 111, 85 N.E.2d 758, 760: "It is a well-established principle that all reasonable intendments not contradicted by the record are to be taken in......