People v. Fuhs

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: GUNN
• Citation: People v. Fuhs, 390 Ill. 67, 60 N.E.2d 205 (Ill. 1945)
• Decision Date: 07 May 1945
• Docket Number: No. 28323.,28323.
• Parties: PEOPLE v. FUHS.

390 Ill. 67

60 N.E.2d 205

PEOPLE

v.FUHS.

No. 28323.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

March 21, 1945.

Writ of Certiorari Denied May 7, 1945.

John Fuhs was convicted of rape, and he brings error.

Affirmed.

See 65 S.Ct. 1186.Error to Circuit Court, St. Clair County; Alfred D. Riess, judge.

John Fuhs, pro se.

George F. Barrett, Atty. Gen., and Louis P. Zerweck, State's Atty., of Belleville, for the People.

GUNN, Justice.

Plaintiff in error, John Fuhs, was, in September, 1936, indicted by the grand jury of St. Clair county on three separate charges of rape. Three indictments were returned, and on each of said indictments the plaintiff in error entered a plea of guilty. No bill of exceptions is filed in said causes. The record discloses that in each case, before judgment and sentence was rendered, ‘the court fully advised the defendant as to his legal and constitutional rights and the consequences of such plea of guilty,’ but the plaintiff in error persisted in his plea of guilty, and was adjudged guilty of the crime of rape. The record further shows that before the entering of judgment and sentence, the court heard evidence and statements of the parties in extenuation or aggravation of the offense, and, after hearing the same, sentenced the plaintiff in error to the Illinois State Penitentiary for a term of ninety-nine years and until duly discharged according to law.

The same recital is contained in all the indictments, and the same plea, admonition and judgment entered, after hearing evidence in aggravation and extenuation. Both parties have made statements of what the facts were in the case. There being no bill of exceptions, they cannot be considered in determining the issue presented here. It is sufficient to say that from the statement of plaintiff in error the offense was of an atrocious character.

The legal points raised by plaintiff in error, who appears in his own behalf, are, first, the court erred in not appointing counsel to represent him. There is nothing in the record before us to indicate that plaintiff in error did anything to bring himself within the provisions of the statute authorizing or permitting the court to appoint counsel for him. 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. Pecho, 362 Ill. 568, 200 N.E. 860;People v. Corbett, 387 Ill. 41, 55 N.E.2d 74. Under the statutory provision (Ill.Rev.Stat.1943, chap. 38, par. 730), the court is required to provide counsel for defendant only when he shall state on oath he is unable to procure counsel. People v. Parcora, 358 Ill. 448, 193 N.E. 477;People v. Corbett, 387 Ill. 41, 55 N.E.2d 74. The first assignment of error is without merit.

The second assignment of error is that the court is without jurisdiction to enter judgment in said causes. Under this point plaintiff in error argues the same point as presented in his first assignment, except that he contends by failing to appoint counsel the court lost jurisdiction of the cause. For the reason set out above, the point is without merit.

The final point is that plaintiff in error was denied due process of law, and under this point the plaintiff in error says...