People v. Dolgin
| Decision Date | 20 May 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 33477,33477 |
| Citation | 126 N.E.2d 681,6 Ill.2d 109 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff In Error, v. Max DOLGIN, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Latham Castle, Atty. Gen. (William C. Wines, Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
C. Hilding Anderson, Chicago, for defendant in error.
This is a proceeding under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1953, chapter 38, pars. 826-832,) wherein the trial court, after hearing, reduced the petitioner's original sentence of two to ten years to one to five years. The People petitioned for writ of error to review this judgment and filed a motion for a writ of supersedeas or order in the nature of a supersedeas to stay the effect of this judgment until final disposition of the writ of error. The writ of error was granted and an order entered staying the effect of the judgment as prayed.
The petitioner below, defendant in error here, filed a motion to dismiss the writ of error on the grounds that the People have no right to a writ of error under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act. This motion was denied and the parties were ordered to file briefs pursuant to the rules of this court. The defendant in error has filed no brief in answer to the brief of the People filed on December 11, 1954.
The People rely entirely upon the insufficiency of the petition and amendment thereto filed in the trial court. This petition alleged that petitioner was confined in the penitentiary as a result of a conviction on June 4, 1952, for a term of not less than two nor more than ten years upon a charge 'of forging and counterfeiting cigarette tax meter stamps for the purpose of evading the Illinois Cigarette Tax Act;' that his constitutional rights were violated in that he was denied equal protection of the laws; that his punishment was cruel and unusual; that he and a codefendant were originally represented by the same counsel, their defenses were antagonistic, he had to employ additional counsel, and he was unconstitutionally denied a severance and a continuance of sufficient length of time to permit his new counsel to prepare his defense; that he engaged a third counsel after the verdict to present a motion for a new trial and this counsel prejudiced the court against him; and that he was convicted upon evidence obtained by unconstitutional search and seizure.
Paragraph 15 of this petition is as follows: 'That a Writ of Error was sued out to the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois, and that the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois in the case of People v. Dolgin, 415 Ill. 434, 114 N.E.2d 389, affirmed the Trial Court; that the said Writ of Error did not cover all of the matters set forth in this petition.'
The People filed a motion to dismiss the petition alleging that petitioner had waived any issues not raised in his writ of error, with a bill of exceptions, and that the decision of this court on the matters raised in the writ of error was res judicata. This motion was 'dismissed' and the People were required to answer the petition.
The trial court erred in 'dismissing' the motion to dismiss, as that motion should have been allowed. Where a defendant is represented by counse...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Amin v. State
...in earlier days, then unrelated to ineffectiveness of counsel questions, by the bill of exception as the appeal mode. People v. Dolgin, 6 Ill.2d 109, 126 N.E.2d 681 (1955). Differing from Illinois, Wyoming does not have a state procedural history of a requirement for the address of ineffect......
-
People v. Washington
...waived. (People v. Doherty, 36 Ill.2d 286, 291, 222 N.E.2d 501; Ciucci v. People, 21 Ill.2d 81, 85, 171 N.E.2d 34; People v. Dolgin, 6 Ill.2d 109, 111, 126 N.E.2d 681.) And our statutory requirement of supporting material or adequate explanation of its absence is an independent and adequate......
-
People v. Rose
...the maximum term fixed by the legislature, is not cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the constitution.' People v. Dolgin, 6 Ill.2d 109, 112, 126 N.E.2d 681, 682. The petitioners claim that the prosecution used evidence which it knew, or imputedly knew, to be false, and allowed false......
-
People v. Doherty
...of a bill of exceptions, any claim which might then have been raised, but was not, is considered waived. (E.g. People v. Dolgin, 6 Ill.2d 109, 111, 126 N.E.2d 681; Ciucci v. People, 21 Ill.2d 81, 85 171 N.E.2d 34.) As we said in People v. Ashley, 34 Ill.2d 402, 408, 216 N.E.2d 126, 129. 'On......