People v. Brown
| Decision Date | 20 March 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 45085,45085 |
| Citation | 54 Ill.2d 25,294 N.E.2d 267 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Ules BROWN, Appellant. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
James J. Doherty, Public Defender, Chicago (James N. Gramenos, Asst. Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.
William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Bernard C. Carey, State's Atty., Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and William K. Hedrick, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), for the People.
The defendant, Ules Brown, represented by the public defender, entered a plea of guilty on October 17, 1969, to an information which charged him with robbery, and on that date he was sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of not less than three nor more than five years.
On December 2, 1969, he filed a Pro se notice of appeal, and the public defender was again appointed to represent him on appeal. His brief was filed in the appellate court on April 2, 1971, and the People's brief was filed on May 27, 1971. The case was orally argued in the appellate court on January 21, 1972. Thereafter, on February 11, 1972, the appellate court, on its own motion, entered judgment dismissing the appeal upon the ground that the appellate court had 'not acquired any jurisdiction to consider defendant's appeal in this case.' (3 Ill.App.3d 1034, 280 N.E.2d 234.) On rehearing the court handed down a supplemental opinion which based the dismissal not upon lack of jurisdiction, but upon the ground that it had not abused its discretion in dismissing the appeal 'because no petition for leave to file a late notice of appeal was ever filed.' (3 Ill.App.3d at 1035, 280 N.E.2d at 235.) We allowed the defendant's petition for leave to appeal.
In People v. Keeney (1970), 45 Ill.2d 280, 259 N.E.2d 56, this court reversed a judgment of the appellate court which dismissed a motion for leave to file a late notice of appeal. Among the reasons advanced to support the ruling was the fact that in that case, as in this one, the trial court had not advised the defendant of the time within which the notice of appeal was required to be filed. In People v. Wilson (1972), 50 Ill.2d 323, 278 N.E.2d 775, we followed the Keeney case and held that the appellate court had abused its discretion in denying leave to file a late notice of appeal. In our opinion the ground relied upon by the appellate court to distinguish these cases--that in the present case no petition for leave to file a late notice of appeal had been filed--unduly emphasizes formality at the expense of substance. Such a motion was presented as a part of the petition for rehearing, but it is not mentioned in the supplemental opinion of the appellate court.
In this case the notice of appeal was filed in the trial court 46 days--instead of 30 days--after the judgment was entered in the trial court. No one was injured by the delay, and the case had been briefed and argued orally in the appellate court. The dismissal of the appeal by that court upon its own motion, more than two years after the notice of appeal was filed, was in our opinion an abuse of discretion.
The judgment of the appellate court is reversed, and the cause is remanded to that court for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
I would affirm the appellate court's dismissal of this appeal.
This case must be considered in the context in which it comes before us. It is abundantly clear from the record that defendant and his couns...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Stanford
...abused its discretion in dismissing the appeal. Williams, 59 Ill.2d at 246, 320 N.E.2d 13. The supreme court relied on People v. Brown, 54 Ill.2d 25, 294 N.E.2d 267 (1973), in which it held, under similar facts, that the appellate court had abused its discretion in dismissing an appeal on i......
-
Robinson v. Leahy
...the state appellate court, People v. Hardaman, 59 Ill.2d 155, 319 N.E.2d 800 (1974), they are very liberally treated. People v. Brown, 54 Ill.2d 25, 294 N.E.2d 267 (1973). Plaintiff has cited neither reason nor precedent to the contrary. The failure of plaintiff to utilize § 606(c) has prev......
-
People v. Salem
...in subsection (c) of Rule 606 expired. Defendant cites People v. Williams, 59 Ill.2d 243, 320 N.E.2d 13 (1974), and People v. Brown, 54 Ill.2d 25, 294 N.E.2d 267 (1973), in support of his argument that subsection (c) somehow saves his untimely notices of appeal. Neither of these cases turns......
-
People v. Williams
...over an extended period of time before the dismissal. (See People v. Williams (1974), 59 Ill.2d 243, 320 N.E.2d 13; People v. Brown (1973), 54 Ill.2d 25, 294 N.E.2d 267. But see People v. Brown (1973), 54 Ill.2d 25, 27-28, 294 N.E.2d 267 (dissent).) In this case, defendants advised the tria......