People v. Coleman
| Decision Date | 10 October 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 60557,60557 |
| Citation | 337 N.E.2d 269,32 Ill.App.3d 949 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Respondent-Appellee, v. Ira J. COLEMAN, Petitioner-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Paul Bradley, First Deputy, State App. Defender, and Patrick J. Hughes, Jr., Chicago, for petitioner-appellant.
Bernard Carey, State's Atty., Cook County, Chicago (Laurence J. Bolon and John T. Theis, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), for respondent-appellee.
Defendant appeals from the dismissal of his post-conviction petition without an evidentiary hearing and the denial of his petition for substitution of judges. Defendant, along with Ben Arnold and Fred Thompson, was indicted for the murder of defendant's wife. On July 17, 1969, Arnold and Thompson pleaded guilty and were sentenced. On the same day defendant signed a jury waiver and proceeded to a bench trial before Judge Minor K. Wilson. Arnold and Thompson testified for the State. On July 25, 1969, defendant was found guilty and sentenced to a term of 40 to 60 years. On direct appeal the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. (People v. Coleman, 49 Ill.2d 565, 276 N.E.2d 721.) Defendant then filed a pro se post-conviction petition (Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 38, par. 122--1) and subsequently the Public Defender filed both a supplemental petition and a petition for substitution of judges in his behalf. The State filed an answer and a motion to dismiss. After a hearing on that motion, Judge Wilson dismissed both petitions. On appeal defendant contends that it was error to dismiss the petitions.
Defendant claimed that his jury waiver was coerced by conversations Dehors the record. In support of that allegation various affidavits were filed, including that of Warren Wolfson, defendant's trial counsel. It stated that Assistant State's Attorney William Wise told him that should the case proceed to trial with a jury, the State would ask for the death penalty. No such request would be made if the case proceeded to a bench trial. Attorney Wolfson also stated that the 'fourth term' (120 day period in which the State must bring a case to trial) was about to end when the case was scheduled for trial. He and his client had planned to proceed with a jury trial before Judge Wilson but were informed that the judge could not preside over a jury trial as he was about to leave town. Judge Wilson did state that he would be able to hear the case if a jury was waived. Wolfson met with Chief Judge Boyle and was informed that only Judge Delaney would be available to preside over an immediate jury trial. Defendant was informed of the situation and decided not to ask for a continuance but rather chose to proceed immediately to a bench trial before Judge Wilson because 'he liked Judge Wilson and wanted him to hear the case.' Defendant also filed the affidavits of two relatives which stated that Attorney Wolfson had told them that a bench trial was acceptable because the State's case against defendant was weak.
The State filed the affidavit of former Assistant State's Attorney William Wise which denied ever using the death penalty as a threat in order to force defendant to waive a jury trial.
As the basis of his petition for substitution of judges defendant stated in his supplemental petition that 'it is Believed by the petitioner' that Judge Wilson was party to an improper conversation with defendant's fellow prisoner, Robert Walton. In support, the affidavit of another fellow prisoner, Robert Curtis, was filed. It alleged that shortly before defendant's trial, an unnamed Assistant State's Attorney visited his tier and talked to Walton; that immediately thereafter, the Assistant State's Attorney asked Curtis to corroborate testimony that was going to be given (by Walton) that defendant had attempted to suborn his fellow prisoners; and that he (Curtis) refused to help the Assistant State's Attorney. It is important to note that Curtis' affidavit also states that 'he could not swear' to the actual occurrence of any conversation between Walton and Judge Wilson. Attorney Wolfson filed a Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum as to Curtis but did not call him as a witness.
The supplemental petition also alleges that Walton was cooperating with the State's Attorney in another matter and had an opportunity to converse with Judge Wilson when, on July 24, 1969, his case was called before Judge Wilson and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Keagbine
...history of prior criminality where he had apparently participated in at least two other armed robberies. In People v. Coleman, 32 Ill.App.3d 949, 337 N.E.2d 269 (1st Dist. 1975), a case similar to the present one, the defendant alleged in a post-conviction proceeding that the assistant stat......
-
People v. Winters
...is not a free choice, absent coercion."¶ 14 We disagree. Although not cited by either party, we find persuasive People v. Coleman , 32 Ill. App. 3d 949, 337 N.E.2d 269 (1975), and People v. Keagbine , 77 Ill. App. 3d 1039, 33 Ill.Dec. 617, 396 N.E.2d 1341 (1979).¶ 15 In Coleman , the defend......
-
Henry v. State, 21259
...prohibiting a judge from presiding over a defendant's trial and subsequent post-conviction relief hearing. See People v. Coleman, 32 Ill.App.3d 949, 337 N.E.2d 269 (1975) (judge presided at bench trial and post-conviction proceeding) ; see also Arledge v. State, 57 Ala.App. 553, 329 So.2d 6......