People v. Catcott
| Decision Date | 21 May 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 29325.,29325. |
| Citation | 393 Ill. 582,67 N.E.2d 175 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. CATCOTT. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Winnebago County; William R. Dusher, judge.
Donald Catcott entered a plea of guilty to an indictment which charged embezzlement. He was released on probation to the probation officer. The probation was terminated and he was sentenced to the penitentiary for the crime of embezzlement, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
Donald Catcott, pro se.
George F. Barrett, Atty. Gen., and Max A. Weston, State's Atty., of Rockford (Robert R. Canfield, of Rockford, of counsel), for the People.
Plaintiff in error entered a plea of guilty in the circuit court of Winnebago county to an indictment which charged embezzlement. On November 18, 1943, he was released on probation to the probation officer of the court for a period of two years. The order was in the usual form and directed that the cause stand continued for two years subject that plaintiff in error should appear before the court at such times as the court should direct. On February 13, 1945, plaintiff in error was before the court and another order was entered which suspended the order of probation to determine whether plaintiff in error was acceptable to the Army for induction into the armed forces of the United States. It also provided, that, if accepted, the order suspending the previous order of probation should continue for the period for which plaintiff in error was engaged in the armed forces. On March 22, 1945, the State's Attorney moved to vacate the order of February 13, 1945, suspending the order of probation. On said date, an order was entered which found that plaintiff in error had been called by the Selective Service Board and rejected for military service. Thereupon it was ordered that the order of February 13, 1945, suspending probation, be vacated, and that the original order of probation (November 18, 1943,) be in full force and effect.
On May 28, 1945, a sworn petition of the State's Attorney charged that plaintiff in error had burglarized a shop and stolen property therefrom. The prayer was that his probation be terminated. The following day, an order was entered declaring the probation at an end, and thereupon defendant was sentenced to the penitentiary for the crime of embezzlement. The judgment provided that he sould serve not less than two nor more than seven years.
Plaintiff in error appears pro se and submits the record, which includes the common-law record and the motions, petitions and orders entered in reference to the probation. He contends that the indictment does not charge conversation or appropriation of the money to his own use. The allegation of the indictment is that plaintiff in error was a servant of William V. Morris, and that he did unlawfully embezzle the funds of Morris. Webster's New International Dictionary defines embezzle ‘to appropriate fraudulently to one's own use, as property entrusted to one's care.’ The word ‘embezzle’ as used in the indictment meant the same as an allegation of fraudulent conversion to his own use. The objection is without merit.
Plaintiff in error further contends that by reason of the several probationary orders, the court lost...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Tauscher
...describing the fraudulent appropriation of property the possession of which has been entrusted to the defendant. People v. Catcott, 1946, 393 Ill. 582, 67 N.E.2d 175, 176; State v. Bobbins, 1955, 35 N.J.Super. 494, 114 A.2d 474, 476, affirmed 21 N.J. 338, 122 A.2d 366. Unless the context de......
- Riley v. Indus. Comm'n
-
State v. Bobbins, A--70
...within itself the charge that the defendant fraudulently appropriated the money or property to his own use. People v. Catcott, 393 Ill. 582, 67 N.E.2d 175 (Sup.Ct.1946); State v. Hudson, 9o W.Va. 435, 117 S.E. 122 (Sup.Ct.App.1923); 2 Burdick, supra, § Next it is claimed that the indictment......
-
People v. Mayfield
... ... Syer, 400 Ill. 444, 81 N.E.2d 186 ... The terms and conditions imposed by the court in this case were entirely authorized by the statute. Ill.Rev.Stat.1951, chap. 38, pars. 786 and 787 ... In People v. Catcott, 393 Ill. 582, 67 N.E.2d 175, 176, the defendant contended that by reason of several probationary orders the court lost jurisdiction and that a judgment committing him to the penitentiary was void. In affirming the original sentence for embezzlement, this court said: 'The question on this review ... ...