People v. Catalano, No. 37717
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
| Writing for the Court | SOLFISBURG |
| Citation | 193 N.E.2d 797,29 Ill.2d 197 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Robert CATALANO, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Docket Number | No. 37717 |
| Decision Date | 27 September 1963 |
Page 797
v.
Robert CATALANO, Plaintiff in Error.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 25, 1963.
[29 Ill.2d 198]
Page 798
Julius Lucius Echeles, Chicago, for plaintiff in error.William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield, an dDaniel P. Ward, State's Atty., Chicago (Fred G. Leach and E. Michael O'Brien, Asst. Attys. Gen., and Edward J. Hladis, Elmer C. Kissane and Matthew J. Moran, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), for defendant in error.
SOLFISBURG, Justice.
[29 Ill.2d 199] On July 26, 1962, the defendant, Robert Catalano, was tried in the criminal court of Cook County before the court without a jury on two indictments: the first alleging unauthorized control of a stolen automobile, and the second alleging theft of another motor vehicle. He was found guilty on both indictments and sentenced to the Illinois State Penitentiary for concurrent terms of not less than one nor more than five years. He prosecutes this writ of error to review his conviction.
The defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying the defendant a change of venue, refusing to permit the defendant to withdraw a jury waiver, and by refusing to permit the defense counsel to withdraw. Defendant also contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the allegations of either indictment.
In order to properly evaluate the first three alleged errors it is necessary that we consider the chronology of events in the trial court leading up to the motions for change of venue, for withdrawal of the jury waiver, and for leave to withdraw by defense counsel.
On May 29, 1962, the defendant was arraigned, entered a plea of not guilty, and the case was assigned to a trial judge. He was represented by an attorney of his own choice on this date and during all subsequent proceedings. On June 29, 1962, the case came up for trial, and the defendant's attorney requested a continuance. Defendant's counsel had not advised the State's Attorney in advance of his intention to request a continuance, and the State asserted that they were ready for trial and that their witnesses were present. At this time, the defendant's counsel entered into a stipulation with regard to the testimony of the owners of the two automobiles in question. In discussing the case defendant's counsel stated, 'This will definitely be a bench trial', and the defendant signed a jury waiver. The defendant also moved for a presentence investigation by the probation department,[29 Ill.2d 200] and on defendant's motion the cause was continued.
On July 26, 1962, this cause came on for trial. At this time the defendant made his motion for a change of venue, which was denied. The following discussion then took place:
'Mr. Caplan: Judge, at this time I would like to ask leave of the Court to withdraw my appearance on behalf of this Defendant.
'The Court: That motion will be denied also. You will have to go to trial, I am afraid.
'Mr. Caplan: Also, the Defendant now tells me that he now wishes a jury trial. He did waive a jury, before. He didn't realize what the consequences were.
'The Court: Your request for a jury trial will be denied, Mr. Caplan. I think the record should reflect that is all brought by your visit to me in chambers this morning.
Page 799
'Mr. Caplan: No, I have nothing to do with it. I don't want to be in this matter. I don't want to have anything to do with it. I don't want to defend this man.
'The Court: Not less than fifteen minutes ago you came into my chambers and wanted to talk about this case--
'Mr. Caplan: That had nothing to do with it.
'The Court: (continuing)-in the absence of the State's Attorney.
'Mr. Caplan: It had nothing to do with this matter. He comes in here today and tells me he wants a jury. He tells me he doesn't want to enter a plea, and now he has witnesses that aren't here. I told him I didn't want to handle the case. He doesn't want me in it.
'The Court: Your motion--
'Mr. Caplan: In the frame of mind I am in with the Defendant, he told me to get a change of venue and I said, 'I'll get you a change of venue but I will withdraw at the same time'-this is very embarrasing to me. I [29 Ill.2d 201] don't want anything to do with the matter. I have received a retainer and I am willing to give him back his money. The retainer I received wasn't very much. I am willing to give it back. I can't represent this man in the frame of mind I am in, Judge. I don't think I want anything to do with it.
'The Court: I can't help but feel, Mr. Caplan, you imposed on this Court, by coming into my chambers this morning in the absence of the State's Attorney and desiring to talk about what disposition the Court intended to make with this case if there was a finding of guilty
'Your...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Flores, No. 2-91-0432
...Defendant must understand the right he is giving up and the consequences of the waiver. [245 Ill.App.3d 154] (People v. Catalano (1963), 29 Ill.2d 197, 202, 193 N.E.2d 797; United States v. Rosa (7th Cir.1991), 946 F.2d 505, 507.) Whether to allow a defendant to withdraw a jury waiver that ......
-
Marquez v. State, No. 1023-94
...§ 18-1-406(3). State v. Rankin, 102 Conn. 46, 127 A. 916, 917 (1925). Floyd v. State, 90 So.2d 105, 106 (Fla.1956). People v. Catalano, 29 Ill.2d 197, 193 N.E.2d 797, 800 (1963), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 904, 84 S.Ct. 1164, 12 L.Ed.2d 176 (1964). Woodson v. State, 501 N.E.2d 409, 411 (Ind.198......
-
People v. Miller
...962 [1954]; State v. Rankin, 102 Conn. 46, 127 A. 916 [1925]; Wilson v. State, 60 Ga.App. 641, 4 S.E.2d 688 [1939]; People v. Catalano, 29 Ill.2d 197, 193 N.E.2d 797 [1963]; State v. Touchet, 33 La.Ann. 1154 [1881]; Staten v. State, 13 Page 433 Md.App. 425, 283 A.2d 644 [1971]. The authorit......
-
People v. Hall, No. 60167
...the trial court unless the circumstances indicate the defendant was unaware of the consequences of the waiver. People v. Catalano (1963), 29 Ill.2d 197, 202, 193 N.E.2d 797, cert. denied (1964), 377 U.S. 904, [114 Ill.2d 415] 84 S.Ct. 1164, [114 Ill.2d 414] 12 L.Ed.2d 176; [114 Ill.2d 415] ......
-
People v. Flores, No. 2-91-0432
...Defendant must understand the right he is giving up and the consequences of the waiver. [245 Ill.App.3d 154] (People v. Catalano (1963), 29 Ill.2d 197, 202, 193 N.E.2d 797; United States v. Rosa (7th Cir.1991), 946 F.2d 505, 507.) Whether to allow a defendant to withdraw a jury waiver that ......
-
Marquez v. State, No. 1023-94
...§ 18-1-406(3). State v. Rankin, 102 Conn. 46, 127 A. 916, 917 (1925). Floyd v. State, 90 So.2d 105, 106 (Fla.1956). People v. Catalano, 29 Ill.2d 197, 193 N.E.2d 797, 800 (1963), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 904, 84 S.Ct. 1164, 12 L.Ed.2d 176 (1964). Woodson v. State, 501 N.E.2d 409, 411 (Ind.198......
-
People v. Miller
...962 [1954]; State v. Rankin, 102 Conn. 46, 127 A. 916 [1925]; Wilson v. State, 60 Ga.App. 641, 4 S.E.2d 688 [1939]; People v. Catalano, 29 Ill.2d 197, 193 N.E.2d 797 [1963]; State v. Touchet, 33 La.Ann. 1154 [1881]; Staten v. State, 13 Page 433 Md.App. 425, 283 A.2d 644 [1971]. The authorit......
-
People v. Hall, No. 60167
...the trial court unless the circumstances indicate the defendant was unaware of the consequences of the waiver. People v. Catalano (1963), 29 Ill.2d 197, 202, 193 N.E.2d 797, cert. denied (1964), 377 U.S. 904, [114 Ill.2d 415] 84 S.Ct. 1164, [114 Ill.2d 414] 12 L.Ed.2d 176; [114 Ill.2d 415] ......