People v. Dodd
| Decision Date | 17 September 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 44691,44691 |
| Citation | 317 N.E.2d 28,58 Ill.2d 53 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. James Floyd DODD, Jr., Appellant. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Paul Bradley and Kenneth L. Jones, Chicago, for appellant.
William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Robert H. Howerton, State's Atty., Marion , for the People.
Petitioner, James Floyd Dodd, Jr., appeals from the judgment of the circuit court of Williamson County dismissing without an evidentiary hearing his petition filed under the provisions of the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 38, par. 122--1 et seq.). The record shows that on June 1, 1966, petitioner waived indictment, pleaded guilty to a one-count information charging him with murder and was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of not less than 30 nor more than 40 years. A post-conviction petition filed April 14, 1967, was dismissed without an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner appealed to this court and while the appeal was pending the Attorney General filed a 'Confession of Error' based on the failure of the circuit court to conduct a competency hearing prior to accepting petitioner's plea of guilty to the murder charge. The confession of error was allowed, the judgment was reversed, the sentence vacated and the cause remanded for further proceedings. The circuit court received the mandate of this court on June 6, 1968. On June 17, 1968, petitioner was indicted on the murder charge and on July 1, 1968, the People moved for a hearing to determine petitioner's competency to stand trial. The competency hearing was held on September 10, 1968, petitioner was found competent, and on September 23, 1968, trial was commenced on the murder indictment. Petitioner was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to not less than 8 nor more than 10 years in the penitentiary.
The post-conviction petition involved in this appeal was filed Pro se, and the circuit court appointed the same attorney who had represented the petitioner in the murder trial to represent him in the post-conviction proceeding. The People moved to dismiss, the motion was allowed, and this appeal followed.
In this appeal, represented by other counsel, petitioner contends that he was not adequately represented in the circuit court by appointed counsel. He contends that the record does not show compliance with Supreme Court Rule 651(c), Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 110A, § 651(c), which, in pertinent part, provides that the record on appeal 'shall contain a showing, which may be made by the certificate of petitioner's attorney, that the attorney has consulted with petitioner either by mail or in person to ascertain his contentions of deprivation of constitutional right, has examined the record of the proceedings at the trial, and has made any amendments to the petition filed Pro se that are necessary for an adequate presentation of petitioner's contentions.' 50 Ill.2d R. 651(c).
Petitioner concedes that there was communication between him and counsel but argues that 'it was not such as to satisfy the requirement of Rule 651(c) in that the time between appointment of counsel and the hearing did not give petitioner time to communicate all his grievances through the mail.' The Pro se petition is lengthy and sets forth in detail a number of allegations of error and of violations of petitioner's constitutional rights. Petitioner does not enumerate any 'grievances' which he failed to communicate to counsel, and the only claim of violation of petitioner's constitutional rights asserted or argued in his brief, other than the claim of inadequate representation in the circuit court, is adequately set forth in the Pro se petition. Under the circumstances we fail to see in what manner petitioner was prejudiced by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Sargent
...claims would be an exercise in futility." Turner, 187 Ill.2d at 412, 241 Ill.Dec. 596, 719 N.E.2d at 729; c.f. People v. Dodd, 58 Ill.2d 53, 56, 317 N.E.2d 28, 30 (1974); People v. Henderson, 215 Ill.App.3d 24, 26, 158 Ill.Dec. 474, 574 N.E.2d 268, 270 (1991); see People v. Leach, 284 Ill.A......
-
People v. Gathings
...computing a speedy trial violation begins on the date that the appellate court mandate is filed in the circuit court. (People v. Dodd (1974), 58 Ill.2d 53, 317 N.E.2d 28; People v. Worley (1970), 45 Ill.2d 96, 256 N.E.2d 751; People v. Baskin (1967), 38 Ill.2d 141, 230 N.E.2d 208; People v.......
-
People v. Sargent, No. 1-03-2096 (IL 9/30/2004)
...have no relevance to petitioner's claims would be an exercise in futility." Turner, 187 Ill. 2d at 412, 719 N.E.2d at 729. Similarly, in People v. Dodd, the supreme court refused to find a violation of the rule, based on counsel's alleged failure to appropriately modify the original petitio......
-
People v. Sargent, No. 1-03-2096 (IL 9/27/2004)
...have no relevance to petitioner's claims would be an exercise in futility." Turner, 187 Ill. 2d at 412, 719 N.E.2d at 729. Similarly, in People v. Dodd, the supreme court refused to find a violation of the rule, based on counsel's alleged failure to appropriately modify the original petitio......