People v. Farris

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: FULTON
• Citation: People v. Farris, 392 Ill. 267, 64 N.E.2d 456 (Ill. 1946)
• Decision Date: 17 January 1946
• Docket Number: No. 28754.,28754.
• Parties: PEOPLE v. FARRIS.

392 Ill. 267

64 N.E.2d 456

PEOPLE

v.FARRIS.

No. 28754.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Nov. 21, 1945.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing Jan. 17, 1946.

Error to Circuit Court, Massac County; H. A. Spann, Judge.

Clifford Farris was convicted of murder, and he brings error.

Affirmed.

Clifford Farris, pro se.

Geo. F. Barrett, Atty. Gen., and Robert H. Chase, State's Atty., of Metropolis, (Grover C. Holmes, of Metropolis, of counsel), for the People.

FULTON, Justice.

In August, 1933, plaintiff in error, upon a plea of guilty to murder, was sentenced by the circuit court of Massac county to the Illinois State Penitentiary for the term of his natural life. He has sued a writ of error out of this court to review the record of his conviction. He appears pro se.

Plaintiff in error has not included in his record a bill of exceptions. He has filed a common-law record containing the judgment entered in his case.

The alleged errors assigned are: (1) The court erred in not fully explaining to plaintiff in error the consequences of entering his plea of guilty to the indictment; (2) the court erred in not examining witnesses as to the aggravation and mitigation of the offense; and (3) that plaintiff in error was tried without due process of law.

The questions argued in the brief of plaintiff in error have been many times presented to this court and ruled upon adversely to the contentions of plaintiff in error, who is also designated as defendant in this opinion.

An examination of the record clearly shows the first assignment of error to be without merit. On the hearing, the court appointed a lawyer to represent the defendant. Later, a plea of guilty to the charge of murder was entered. It is insisted by plaintiff in error that the record does not contain one word to the effect that he had ever been fully or partially warned of the consequences of his plea of guilty, as required by section 4 of division XIII of the Criminal Code. However, in the supplemental transcript of the record filed in this cause and certified by the clerk of the circuit court of Massac county, the judgment order of the court shows that the defendant was advised and admonished by the court not only of his right to a trial by jury but also as to the consequences of his plea of guilty and that he persisted in his plea. In People v. Fuhs, 390 Ill. 67, 60 N.E.2d 205, this court held that it is not necessary for the record to show the particular words of warning when the record recites the defendant was admonished as to the consequences of his plea. In People v. Corbett, 387 Ill. 41, 55 N.E.2d 74, 75, we said: ‘In the absence of an affirmative showing in the record to the contrary, it will be presumed that the court discharged its duty to the defendant in all respects.’ People v. Gerke, 332 Ill. 583, 164 N.E. 185. We hold that the trial court fully performed its duty in advising the accused of the consequences of the plea of guilty as required by section 4 of division XIII of the Criminal Code. Ill.Rev.Stat.1943, chap. 38, par. 732.

The statement in plaintiff in error's brief that his lawyer told him if he would plead guilty he would see to it that defendant received a sentence of one to fourteen years, is without any support whatsoever in the record and cannot be considered on this review.

The contention that the court committed error in not examining witnesses as to the aggravation and mitigation of the offense is based upon the language in the latter part of the above-cited section of the Criminal Code which reads as follows: ‘In all cases where the court possesses any discretion as to the extent of the punishment, it shall be the duty of the court to examine witnesses as to the aggravation and mitigation of the offense.’ It is the position of the defendant that the above requirement is mandatory and that a failure to hear such testimony is error.

The common-law record presented is silent as to whether evidence on this point was heard. The section has, however, been frequently before this court for construction. In several cases this court has held that where the record does not disclose that...