People v. Garrison
| Decision Date | 26 September 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 41405,41405 |
| Citation | 251 N.E.2d 200,43 Ill.2d 121 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. James R. GARRISON, Appellant. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Thomas W. Alvey, Jr., East St. Louis, appointed by the court, for appellant.
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.
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 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 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 Post-Conviction Hearing Act we said in People v. Slaughter, 39 Ill.2d 278 at p. 285, 235 N.E.2d 566 at p. 569:
The Post-Conviction Hearing Act provides for the appointment of counsel for indigent petitioners and, unless proper representation is afforded, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Szabo v. Walls
... ... The first capital sentence was reversed by the Supreme Court of Illinois because of errors in the hearing, see People v. Szabo, 94 Ill.2d 327, 68 Ill.Dec. 935, 447 N.E.2d 193 (1983) ( Szabo I ), but the second was affirmed. See People v. Szabo, 113 Ill.2d 83, 100 ... 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 ... ...
-
People v. Wilson
... ... Rule 651(c) was adopted pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court case law interpretation of the Act. (See Ill.Ann.Stat., ch. 110A, sec. 651, Committee 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 the petitioner's counsel before the trial court must certify to the appellate court that the attorney has consulted with the ... ...
-
People v. Jones
...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......
-
People v. Anguiano
...Slaughter and holding pro se defendant who was later appointed counsel did not receive adequate representation); People v. Garrison, 43 Ill.2d 121, 123, 251 N.E.2d 200 (1969) (applying Slaughter and holding that, “unless proper representation is afforded, the appointment of an attorney is b......