People v. Craig
| Decision Date | 24 September 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 40944,40944 |
| Citation | 240 N.E.2d 588,40 Ill.2d 466 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Hazen CRAIG, Appellant. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Burton E. Glazov, Chicago, appointed by the court, for appellant.
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and John J. Stamos, State's Atty., Chicago (Fred G. Leach, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Elmer C. Kissane and Richard Trais, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), for appellee.
After a jury trial in the circuit court of Cook County, the defendant, Hazen Craig was found guilty of robbery and on November 7, 1963, he was sentenced to a term of not less than three nor more than ten years in the penitentiary. On appeal his conviction was affirmed by the appellate court. (People v. Craig, 75 Ill.App.2d 29, 221 N.E.2d 86.) In that appeal defendant contended that he did not receive a fair trial, alleging that the prosecutor's closing argument was improper; that the testimony of a prosecution witness was improper; that the cross-examination of a prosecution witness was improperly restricted; and that several statements of the trial judge to the jury were improper.
Following the appellate court decision affirming his conviction, the defendant, on January 12, 1967, filed a post-conviction petition Pro se, alleging that the State's Attorney had knowingly introduced false and perjured testimony and that his court-appointed counsel had incompetently represented him. On January 30, 1967, the public defender of Cook County entered his appearance representing the defendant in the post-conviction proceedings. On February 2, 1967, the State filed a motion to dismiss the post-conviction petition, alleging that defendant's petition failed to raise any constitutional questions; that any allegations which might be construed as raising such constitutional questions are merely bare allegations unsupported by facts; and that petitioner's allegations are barred by the doctrine of Res judicata on the basis of the appellate court's decision affirming defendant's conviction.
The hearing on the State's motion to dismiss was held on June 5, 1967, at which time the prosecutor amplified his objections to the petition. The only statement on behalf of the defendant made to the court by the public defender is as follows:
'Your Honor, having carefully read the petition and the State's motion to dismiss, I am satisfied that the Appellate Court took cognizance of most of the points raised in it and that those points which were not specifically decided, that is the point covering the incompetency of counsel would have been noted by the Appellate Court had any such incompetency been present.
'I am satisfied that the Appellate Court opinion is res adjudicata on everything he raised in his petition.'
Following this statement by the assistant public defender the trial court granted the State's motion to dismiss the petition. We granted defendant leave to appeal from the order dismissing his petition and he now contends that he did...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Anguiano
...present [4 N.E.3d 487]the prisoner's constitutional contentions.” Slaughter, 39 Ill.2d at 285, 235 N.E.2d 566; see also People v. Craig, 40 Ill.2d 466, 240 N.E.2d 588 (1968) (applying Slaughter and holding pro se defendant who was later appointed counsel did not receive adequate representat......
-
People v. Suarez
...(1968); People v. Ford, 40 Ill.2d 440, 240 N.E.2d 620 (1968); People v. Wilson, 40 Ill.2d 378, 240 N.E.2d 583 (1968); People v. Craig, 40 Ill.2d 466, 240 N.E.2d 588 (1968); People v. Tyner, 40 Ill.2d 1, 238 N.E.2d 377 (1968). In Jones, this court rejected the State's argument that the circu......
-
People v. Turner
...v. Wales, 46 Ill.2d 79, 81, 262 N.E.2d 926 (1970); People v. Garrison, 43 Ill.2d 121, 124, 251 N.E.2d 200 (1969); People v. Craig, 40 Ill.2d 466, 469, 240 N.E.2d 588 (1968). Nothing in these cases or Rule 651(c), however, requires appointed counsel to consult with petitioner a certain numbe......
-
People v. Smith
... ... People v. Knight, 38 Ill.2d 373, 232 N.E.2d 292; People v. Reed, 36 Ill.2d 358, 223 N.E.2d 103 ... This case is distinguished on its facts from People v. Barnes, Ill., 240 N.E.2d 586, and People v. Craig, Ill., 240 N.E.2d 588, decided this term, in that it does not affirmatively appear here that the public defender failed to communicate with the defendant regarding his post-conviction petition; in each of those cases the absence of communication by counsel with defendant was apparent from the ... ...