People v. Brendeland
| Decision Date | 24 January 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 34123,34123 |
| Citation | 140 N.E.2d 708,10 Ill.2d 469 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Arthur BRENDELAND, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Abraham W. Brussell, Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
Latham Castle, Atty. Gen., and John Gutknecht, State's Atty., Chicago (Fred G. Leach, Decatur, Irwin D. Bloch, John T. Gallagher, Rudolph L. Janega, and William L. Carlin, Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
Plaintiff in error, Arthur Brendeland, together with Wayne Conroy, Robert Foley and Clifford Baker, were indicted in the criminal court of Cook County for the crime of burglary. Conroy, Foley and Baker each filed a plea of guilty. Brendeland pleaded not guilty, and waived trial by jury. At the conclusion of his trial before the court he was found guilty and was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than two nor more than eight years. On their pleas of guilty, codefendants Foley and Baker were each sentenced to a term not less than two nor more than six years, and Conroy was granted probation. Brendeland has sued out a writ of error to review the judgment, contending that the evidence is insufficient, and that his sentence is unduly harsh as compared to the sentences received by his codefendants.
The testimony of Conroy, Baker and two police officers, appearing on behalf of the prosecution, shows that on the evening of August 28, 1955, the four young men, all between nineteen and twenty-five years of age, were together at Baker's home. They discussed their need for money, and Conroy suggested obtaining some by means of a burglary. They then left the house in Conroy's automobile, with Conroy driving, and proceeded to look for houses at which the occupants were not home. They drove to River Forest, where they observed a darkened house. All four went up to it, but were unable to get in. They re-entered the car and rode around until they saw a house without lights in Maywood. They parked the car a block away from the house; and Conroy and Foley, who had been riding in the front seat, left the automobile, went up to the house, and gained entrance through a bathroom window. There they took money and various items of personal property valued at about $280. As they were leaving the house they were seen by some people next door, who were arriving home in their automobile. Conroy and Foley then started running from the neighborhood, and were later apprehended by the police in Elmhurst.
In the meantime, when Conroy and Foley left the automobile to approach the house, Brendeland and Baker moved into the front seat, Brendeland taking a position behind the driver's wheel. Shortly thereafter, while Conroy and Foley were inside the house, police officers had received a message about the present of a suspicious car, and drove up to the one occupied by Brendeland and Baker. Upon being questioned about the reason for their presence, Brendeland and Baker stated they and two other men had met a young lady at the beach that afternoon, had brought her home early in the evening, and had arranged to meet her about ten o'clock in that neighborhood. To a question concerning the whereabouts of the two other men, they replied that the latter had left the neighborhood in Brendeland's automobile. Brendeland and Baker were then taken to the police station for further questioning, and while they were there the burglary was discovered.
Brendeland testified on his own behalf that while they were riding in the car he told...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Tiller
... ... Even if the jury believed that, as he left the cleaners, defendant warned Jones not to hurt Miss Brown, he could nevertheless be accountable for her murder. Any act committed by his accomplice Jones in furtherance of the robbery of Nersesian is attributable to defendant. People v. Brendeland (1957), 10 Ill.2d 469, 472, 140 N.E.2d 708 ... Defendant contends that his alleged admonishment to Jones not to hurt Miss Brown is a "critical factor indicating that [he] did not share any common criminal purpose as to her * * *." Defendant's argument is essentially that he ... ...
-
People v. Palmer
...we will not search the record or consider the contention. (People v. Swets, 24 Ill.2d 418, 424, 182 N.E.2d 150; People v. Brendeland, 10 Ill.2d 469, 472, 140 N.E.2d 708.) However, we have on occasions involving a possible denial of due process, looked to the record in such situations where ......
-
People v. Kessler
...Nowak (1970), 45 Ill.2d 158, 168, 258 N.E.2d 313; People v. Rybka (1959), 16 Ill.2d 394, 405, 158 N.E.2d 17; People v. Brendeland (1957), 10 Ill.2d 469, 471, 472, 140 N.E.2d 708. The appeal from the convictions under the two counts of attempt murder presents a different, and we think, a mor......
-
People v. Rybka
...in the overt act. People v. Marx, 291 Ill. 40, 125 N.E. 719; People v. Taylor, 319 Ill. 174, 149 N.E. 797; People v. Brendeland, 10 Ill.2d 469, 140 N.E.2d 708. Evidence that a defendant voluntarily attached himself to a group bent on illegal acts with knowledge of its design supports an inf......