People v. Daulley

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: FULTON
• Citation: People v. Daulley, 387 Ill. 403, 56 N.E.2d 814 (Ill. 1944)
• Decision Date: 19 September 1944
• Docket Number: No. 27870.,27870.
• Parties: PEOPLE v. DAULLEY.

387 Ill. 403

56 N.E.2d 814

PEOPLE

v.DAULLEY.

No. 27870.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Sept. 19, 1944.

Error to Circuit Court, Madison County; Alfred D. Riess, Judge.

William B. Daulley was convicted of forgery, and he brings error.

Affirmed.George F. Barrett, Atty. Gen., and C. W. Burton, State's Atty., of Edwardsville, for the People.

William B. Daulley, pro se.

FULTON, Chief Justice.

The plaintiff in error, William B. Daulley, pleaded guilty to the crime of forgery in the circuit court of Madison county on June 16, 1943, and was sentenced by that court to the Illinois State Penitentiary for a term of from one to fourteen years and there to remain until discharged according to law. The plaintiff in error appears in this court pro se. He presents no bill of exceptions or proceedings had in the court below, but urges that there is substantial error shown in the common-law record filed herein from the circuit court of Madison county.

In what purports to be an abstract of record in this court, two errors are assigned as follows:

1. The court erred in fixing a definite place where the sentence should be served.

2. The court erred in not hearing evidence in aggravation and mitigation of the offense.

The errors will be considered in the order presented. The statute in force and effect at the time the plaintiff in error was sentenced in this case provided that all commitments should be made to the Illinois State Penitentiary generally and that the Department of Public Safety should have full power to assign the committed person to the division of the penitentiary system appropriated to his class. Ill.Rev.Stat.1941, chap. 108, par. 107. The judgment contained in the common-law record shows that the plaintiff in error was definitely sentenced to the ‘Illinois State Penitentiary.’ This sentence was in exact conformity with the provisions of the above statute. A copy of the penitentiary mittimus was also contained in the record filed and recites that the plaintiff in error was sentenced ‘to the penitentiary of this state at Menard.’

It is contended by the plaintiff in error that the court erred in fixing a definite place of confinement where the sentence should be served. This court has many times held that all reasonable intendments not contradicted by the record are in favor of the validity of a judgment of conviction, and a person seeking reversal of such judgment has the burden of showing the illegality of such proceedings. People v. Throop, 359 Ill. 354, 194 N.E. 553. We have also, on frequent occasions, held that a prisoner duly convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary is confined to such institution not by virtue of the warrant of commitment but on account of the judgment and sentence rendered against him in the trial court. In the case of People v. Stacey, 372 Ill. 478, 24 N.E.2d 378, 380, after announcing the above rule, the court said: ‘However, the warrant should conform to the judgment on which it is based and if it does not follow the judgment, a good warrant may be substituted at any time in place of a defective one.’ In People ex rel. Busch...