People v. Bernovich

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: FULTON
• Citation: People v. Bernovich, 391 Ill. 141, 62 N.E.2d 691 (Ill. 1945)
• Decision Date: 19 September 1945
• Docket Number: No. 28583.,28583.
• Parties: PEOPLE v. BERNOVICH.

391 Ill. 141

62 N.E.2d 691

PEOPLE

v.BERNOVICH.

No. 28583.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Sept. 19, 1945.

Error to Circuit Court, Peoria County; Henry J. Ingram, Judge.

Joseph Bernovich pleaded guilty to an indictment charging murder and was sentenced to serve 150 years in the State Penitentiary. To review a judgment overruling his motion to vacate the judgment sentencing him to prison and grant leave to change plea to not guilty and remanding him to the state penitentiary, defendant brings error.

Judgment affirmed.

Joseph Bernovich, pro se.

George F. Barrett, Atty. Gen., Roy P. Hull, State's Atty., and C. E. McNemar, both of Peoria, for defendant in error.

FULTON, Justice.

On March 14, 1935, the plaintiff in error, Joseph Bernovich, named as defendant in this opinion, was indicted in the circuit court of Peoria county on the charge of murder. On May 15, 1936, he plead guilty and was sentenced to serve 150 years in the Illinois State Penitentiary at Joliet.

On September 27, 1940, more than four years after he was sentenced, the defendant filed a motion to vacate the judgment sentencing him, asking that he be permitted to withdraw his plea of guilty and change said plea to ‘not guilty,’ to which motion an answer was filed by the State. On November 26, 1940, an extended hearing, including the taking of considerable testimony, was held, after which the trial court overruled the motion and remanded the defendant to the State penitentiary. A report of the proceedings taken upon the hearing was preserved and certified by the trial judge as true and correct on March 15, 1941. The case in now here on a writ of error to the circuit court of Peoria county.

The pertinent facts which are contained in a signed confession made by the defendant, and which are undisputed, show that on January 22, 1935, the defendant, who had formerly been employed by the Postal Telegraph Company at Peoria, Illinois, entered the office of said company about midnight where he met a former friend, Charles Zimmerman, in charge of the office. Under the threat of shooting Zimmerman, he robbed the company safe of about $100. He then backed Zimmerman at the point of a gun down into the basement and shot Zimmerman before leaving. Zimmerman died a few hours afterwards as a result of the shooting.

The defendant subsequently was indicted, convicted and sentenced to the State Penitentiary of Missouri for armed robbery, from where he had escaped and returned to Illinois. He was then apprehended in Chicago and returned to Peoria for trial.

To reverse the judgment of the trial court he contends first that his constitutional rights were violated because the court did not appoint counsel to represent him. On the hearing of the motion to vacate the judgment he testified he did not know it was within the power of the court to appoint counsel to represent him and that he had no funds to employ counsel. Both the State's Attorney and his assistant testified they notified defendant the court would appoint a lawyer to defend him if he so desired, but he insisted he did not want counsel but wished to plead guilty. The following statement at the close of his written confession confirms such testimony: ‘All I have to add at this time is that I want to get it over with and not cause my relatives and more grief.’ In any event, it is well settled that in Illinois no duty is imposed upon the court to appoint legal counsel for an accused unless he states upon oath his inability to procure legal assistance. People v. Corrie, 387 Ill. 587, 56 N.E.2d 767;People v. Corbett, 387 Ill. 41,55 N.E.2d 77.

The defendant next insists that the court erred in not examining witnesses in behalf of defendant as to aggravation or mitigation of the offense. We have held that after a plea of guilty, if neither party makes a request for an examination of witnesses as to the aggravation or mitigation of the offense, such hearing will be deemed waived. People v. Throop, 359 Ill. 354, 194 N.E....