People v. Couvion

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: UNDERWOOD
• Citation: People v. Couvion, 211 N.E.2d 746, 33 Ill.2d 408 (Ill. 1965)
• Decision Date: 19 November 1965
• Docket Number: No. 38394,38394
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Roy COUVION, Plaintiff in Error.

Page 746

211 N.E.2d 746

33 Ill.2d 408

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Roy COUVION, Plaintiff in Error.

No. 38394.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Nov. 19, 1965.

D. McMeekin Conn, Sparta, for plaintiff in error.

William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Howard Clotfelter, State's Atty., Chester (Fred G. Leach and William A. Bomp, Asst. Attys. Gen., of counsel), for defendant in error.

UNDERWOOD, Justice.

Defendant was adjudged a sexually dangerous person under the provisions of section 8 of the act of 1933 in relation to the Illinois State Penitentiary (Ill.Rev.Stat.1959, chap. 108, par. 112,) after a bench trial in the circuit court of Randolph County, and was committed to the custody of the Director of Public Safety. On this writ of error he contends that failure of the trial court, sua sponte, to determine his indigence and provide him with counsel deprived him of due process of law under the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States, and also contravenes section 9 of article II of the constitution of Illinois, S.H.A. It is further maintained that the failure to report the trial court proceedings deprived him of a fair hearing in that no adequate review may now be had. No attack is made upon the constitutionality of section 8 of the act as such, defendant's theory being rather that the procedure thereunder employed has violated his constitutional rights.

The record indicates that defendant was convicted of the offense of indecent liberties with a child on December 13, 1948 and was sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for one to twenty years. He was to be discharged on March 12, 1960, but before that date, and while he was still an inmate, a petition was filed alleging him to be a sexually dangerous person and praying that upon the expiration of his sentence he be delivered into the custody of the Director of the Department of Public Safety until his recovery.

After the petition was filed, the court pursuant to state ordered defendant examined by a commission of two qualified physicians, directed that they file findings and recommendations, and by written order served upon defendant on February 16, 1960, two weeks prior to the hearing, advised him of his right to jury trial and that upon a showing of indigence counsel would be provided for him. Subsequent to the filing of the recommendations, a hearing was held at which defendant was adjudged sexually dangerous and remanded to the custody of the Director of the Department of Public Safety, where he remains.

Defendant was unrepresented by counsel throughout the proceedings, the order of commitment finding: '* * * no demand for a jury was made * * * and no demand was made for the appointment of counsel * * *'.

The principal thrust of defendant's argument is that the court below must have been aware, from the allegations set forth in the petition and a document attached thereto, a 'Release Progress Report' prepared by a prison psychiatrist, that it was dealing with, at best, a minimally competent person with a 'borderling mental deficiency,' unable to read or write, and who had spent much of his life in institutions. Since it was apparent that defendant could not read the order advising him of his right to counsel upon proof of indigency, it is vigorously urged that a duty devolved upon the court to specifically orally advise the...