People v. Economac
| Decision Date | 22 December 1909 |
| Citation | 243 Ill. 107,90 N.E. 302 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. ECONOMAC. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Lockwood Honore, Judge.
Frank Economac was convicted and he brings error. Affirmed.W. G. Anderson (George H. Sugrue, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
W. H. Stead, Atty. Gen., John E. W. Wayman, State's Atty., and Joel C. Fitch (Zack Hoffheimer, of counsel), for the People.
January 23, 1907, the grand jury in Cook county returned an indictment for rape against the plaintiff in error. He was arrested on a warrant, and in default of bail was remanded to the custody of the sheriff of Cook county. January 28, 1907, he was arraigned in the criminal court of said county and pleaded not guilty, and was again remanded to the custody of the sheriff. February 15, 1907, the case, by order of the criminal court, was transferred to the municipal court of Chicago, and by the order of transfer he was again remanded to the custody of the sheriff. November 14, 1907, plaintiff in error being present in person, the criminal court vacated its former order transferring said case to the municipal court and reinstated it in the criminal court, again remanding him to the custody of the sheriff. In this order of reinstatement it was set forth, among other things, that on or about February 25, 1907, plaintiff in error was tried and convicted in the municipal court and committed to the Illinois State Penitentiary; that on November 11, 1907, the municipal court vacated that judgment of conviction, and transferred the case to the criminal court of Cook county. Plaintiff in error on November 21, 1907, made a motion to be discharged, which was overruled by the court and exception taken. On November 29, 1907, plaintiff in error again moved for his discharge, which motion was again overruled and exception taken. Thereafter, on said November 29, 1907, plaintiff in error was placed on trial in the criminal court, and on November 30th the jury returned a verdict of guilty, and fixed his punishment at imprisonment for 15 years in the penitentiary. December 13, § 907, on motion of plaintiff in error, the court set aside the verdict of guilty and granted a new trial, whereupon, on the same day, plaintiff in error withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty, and the court sentenced him to imprisonment in the Illinois State Penitentiary for a term of four years. No bill of exceptions is found in the record.
The argument is made that on this record the prisoner should be discharged because he was not brought to trial in the criminal court within the time required by statute. It is insisted that this record is practically the same as the one passed on in People v. Jonas, 234 Ill. 56, 84 N. E. 685, and that that case is decisive of the questions here involved. We cannot so hold. In the Jonas Case there was a bill of exceptions which properly preserved the objections and exceptions to the errors relied on. Here there is no bill of exceptions. The plaintiff in error was only entitled to be set at liberty in case the delay as to bringing his case to trial did not happen on his own application. If such delay happened on his own application he is in no position to complain. This court held in Dougherty v. People, 124 Ill. 557, 559, 16 N. E. 852, 853, that where there is no bill of exceptions in the record ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Rockett
...reviewed on writ of error. People v. Sweeney, 409 Ill. 223, 99 N.E.2d 143; People v. Farley, 408 Ill. 194, 96 N.E.2d 452; People v. Economac, 243 Ill. 107, 90 N.E. 302. There is no bill of exceptions before us in the present case and, without it, this court is left to determine the facts re......
-
People v. Iasello
... ... People v. Sweeney, 409 Ill. 223, 99 N.E.2d 143; People v. Farley, 408 Ill. 194, 96 N.E.2d 452; People v. Economac, 243 Ill. 107, 90 N.E. 302. There is no bill of exceptions before us in the present case and, without it, this court is left to determine the facts relating to the date of confinement from conjecture and from matters de hors the record. In order to bolster his contention, plaintiff in error has ... ...
-
People v. Barnard
...offense by a court having jurisdiction of the offense, with certain exceptions therein provided. This court held in People v. Economac, 243 Ill. 107, 90 N.E. 302, and People ex rel. Freeman v. Murphy, 212 Ill. 584, 72 N.E. 902, that one indicted for an alleged offense who desires to claim t......
-
People v. Baker
... ... In order to invoke the provisions of that statute, he must show by a bill of exceptions that the delay was not on his own application. People v. Lantz, 387 Ill. 72, 55 N.E.2d 78;People v. Economac, 243 Ill. 107, 109, 90 N.E. 302;People ex rel. Freeman v. Murphy, 212 Ill. 584, 72 N.E. 902. This he has failed to show.The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.Judgment ... ...