People v. Garrison, 41405
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
| Writing for the Court | WARD |
| Citation | 251 N.E.2d 200,43 Ill.2d 121 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. James R. GARRISON, Appellant. |
| Docket Number | No. 41405,41405 |
| Decision Date | 26 September 1969 |
Page 200
v.
James R. GARRISON, Appellant.
Thomas W. Alvey, Jr., East St. Louis, appointed by the court, for appellant.
[43 Ill.2d 122] William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Robert H. Rice, State's Atty., Belleville (Fred G. Leach, Asst. Atty. Gen., and John M. Karns, Jr., Asst. State's Atty., of counsel), for the People.
WARD, Justice.
The defendant, James Garrison, entered a plea of guilty in the circuit court of St. Clair County in July of 1964 to an indictment charging him with burglary. He was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of 8 to 12 years.
On May 19, 1967, the defendant, referring to a post-conviction petition he stated he had filed in the circuit court on May 12, 1965, moved for the appointment of counsel, because, among other reasons, 'he recognizes that his pending petition is insufficient and needs amending.' The petition of May, 1965, is not in the record and no comment concerning it appears. On June 2, 1967, the petitioner, acting Pro se, filed a petition under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1967, ch. 38, par. 122--1 Et seq.) which he described as an 'amended' petition. On or about August 4, 1967, no action apparently having been taken on his motion for the appointment of counsel, the defendant filed a motion asking that the proceedings on the petition be expedited, and in this motion he again requested the
Page 201
appointment of an attorney. Counsel was appointed for him apparently on November 9, 1967. It appears that no answer or other response to the petition was ever filed by the State, though an answer or motion to dismiss is required by the Act. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1967, ch. 38, par. 122--5.) An order denying the defendant's petition was entered on April 2, 1968. The order recited that counsel for both sides had appeared and that argument had been heard.The defendant's only argument is that his representation in the post-conviction proceedings was so seriously deficient that he was deprived of the assistance of counsel to which [43 Ill.2d 123] he was entitled under the terms of the Post-Conviction Hearing Act. The argument claims, among other things, that the defendant's attorney never consulted with him concerning his later denied petition.
Discussing the responsibilities imposed on an attorney appointed to represent an indigent petitioner under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Wilson, 84-2095
...Comments, at 419 (Smith-Hurd 1976), citing to People v. Slaughter (1968), 39 Ill.2d 278, 235 N.E.2d 566; People v. Garrison (1969), 43 Ill.2d 121, 251 N.E.2d 200; People v. Jones (1969), 43 Ill.2d 160, 251 N.E.2d 218.) The court has consistently interpreted Rule 651(c) as a requirement that......
-
People v. Suarez, 100499.
...N.E.2d 218 (1969) (failure to consult is a failure to discharge an elementary responsibility of representation), and People v. Garrison, 43 Ill.2d 121, 251 N.E.2d 200 (1969) (holding that a failure to confer does not meet even a minimal professional standard and necessitates reversal). 134 ......
-
People v. Jones, 1–09–2529.
...the basis of his complaints, shapes those complaints into appropriate legal form, and presents them to the court.’ ” People v. Garrison, 43 Ill.2d 121, 123, 251 N.E.2d 200 (1969) (quoting People v. Slaughter, 39 Ill.2d 278, 285, 235 N.E.2d 566 (1968)). See also People v. Perkins, 229 Ill.2d......
-
Szabo v. Walls, 02-1800.
...presents them to the court. People v. Slaughter, 39 Ill.2d 278, 235 N.E.2d 566, 569 (1968). Applying this standard in People v. Garrison, 43 Ill.2d 121, 251 N.E.2d 200 (1969), the Supreme Court of Illinois reversed a circuit court order dismissing a petition in which "[t]he record d[id] not......