People v. Chapman

• Decision Date: 17 January 1946
• Docket Number: No. 28978.,28978.
• Citation: 392 Ill. 168,64 N.E.2d 529
• Parties: PEOPLE v. CHAPMAN.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

392 Ill. 168

64 N.E.2d 529

PEOPLE

v.CHAPMAN.

No. 28978.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Nov. 21, 1945.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing Jan. 17, 1946.

Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Robert E. Crowe, Judge.

Joseph Chapman had been convicted of murder and more than 20 years thereafter sued out a writ of error out of the Supreme Court which brought the commonlaw record for review. The People of the State of Illinois filed a plea of limitations.

Plea sustained and writ of error quashed.

Joseph Chapman, pro se.

George F. Barrett, Atty. Gen., and Wm. J. Tuohy, State's Atty., of Chicago (Edward Eurlson, John T. Gallagher, and Melvin S. Rembe, all of Chicago, of counsel), for the pepole.

MURPHY, Justice.

An indictment returned in the criminal court of Cook county in March, 1918, charged plaintiff in error with the crime of murder. He selected his own counsel, was duly arraigned and entered a plea of not guilty. After a part of the jurors had been qualified for jury service, plaintiff in error made the necessary motions to permit him to withdraw his plea of not guilty and plead guilty. Evidence was heard and a judgment entered committing him to the penitentiary for life. At the March term, 1945, he sued a writ of error out of this court which brings the common-law record here for review. Plaintiff in error contends the record does not show that his rights were fully explained to him as required by section 4 of division XIII of the Criminal Code. Ill.Rev.Stat.1943, chap. 38, par. 732.

Defendant in error has filed a plea of limitations which will have to be sustained. The plea sets forth the fact, which appears upon the face of the record, that the writ of error was issued more than twenty years after the entry of the judgment. The writ of error was a commonlaw writ. The limitation of time for suing out such writ was twenty years. People v. Murphy, 296 Ill. 532, 129 N.E. 868;Peterson v. Manhattan Life Co., 244 Ill. 329, 91 N.E. 466,18 Ann.Cas. 96. Statutes have fixed a limitation within which transcripts of proceedings must be filed, but this requirement should not be confused with the time limitation for bringing a writ of error to review matters of record. The limitation period of twenty years recognized at common law has not been changed in criminal cases.

Plaintiff in error concedes the record shows a lapse of more than twenty years between the date of the judgment and the writ of error but contends the limitation plea should be rejected for the reason that it was filed in violation of rules of court, and that the facts he has pleaded in his reply are sufficient to stop the running of the limitation.

Rule 70 of this court, Ill.Rev.Stat.1943, c. 110, s 259.70, 370 Ill. 70, directs that in all cases in a reviewing court where the defendant in error or appellee desires to file a motion in the nature of a plea, the same shall be filed not later than the first day of the term to which the cause is docketed. This action was docketed to the September term and was on the calendar for all on September 17. If defendant in error's plea is treated as a motion in the nature of a plea, then, to comply with the rule, it should have been filed not later than the first day of the September term, which was September 10. Defendant in error's limitation plea was not a motion in the nature of a plea and cannot be classed as coming within the provisions of Rule 70. Other facts pertinent to the inquity are that, before the September term convened, defendant in error placed a motion in the hands of the clerk of this court which challenged plaintiff in error's right to maintain a writ of error more than twenty years after the judgment had been entered. Request was made for leave to file such motion. This was denied September 11 for the reason that the defense of...