People v. Glenn
| Decision Date | 25 May 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 36862,36862 |
| Citation | 25 Ill.2d 82,182 N.E.2d 670 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Herbert GLENN, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
McCoy, Ming & Leighton, Chicago (George N. Leighton, Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State's Attorney, Chicago , for defendant in error.
By writ of error defendant has brought before us the common-law record of his conviction in the criminal court of Cook County and challenges the validity of the judgment entered against him and the sentence imposed thereon.
In 1952 defendant was tried by the court without a jury on a two-count indictment. The first count charged him with the crime against nature; the second with taking improper and indecent liberties with a child. The common-law record, filed on October 20, 1961, states that the court found the defendant 'guilty in manner and form as charged in the indictment' and entered judgment that the defendant 'is guilty of the said crime of guilty in manner and form as charged in the indictment in this cause, and said finding of guilty,' and that the court sentenced him to the penitentiary 'for the crime of guilty in manner and form as charged in the indictment whereof he stands convicted for a term of years, not less than five years, nor more than twenty years for the crime whereof he stands convicted.'
The sentence of from 5 to 20 years was within the statutory range of penalties for the crime of taking indecent liberties but not for the crime against nature. Ill.Rev.Stat.1951, chap. 38, pars. 109, 141.
Defendant contends that the jugment and sentence are either void or reversibly erroneous, because of the failure to specify the crime of which he was adjudged guilty and for which he was sentenced.
On February 10, 1962, the People filed a supplemental record showing that, on January 26, 1962, the trial court ordered the record corrected to show that judgment and sentence had been entered on the second count of the indictment, that is on the indecent liberties charge. As part of the supplemental record, the People have filed the corrected common-law record, showing judgment and sentence under count II of the indictment.
The correction of the record was made after proper notice and after a hearing at which defendant was represented by counsel, and was based on an entry in the trial judge's handwriting in his trial book, made contemporaeously with the pronouncement of judgment and sentence, clearly showing that judgment and sentence were entered under count II of the indictment. The record in a criminal case may be amended after the term at which it was made has elapsed, when by reason of clerical misprision it does not speak the truth, provided there is a memorial by which the court is able to determine that there was in fact a misprision or mistake on the part of the clerk in the entry of the judgment. (People v. Michael, 23 Ill.2d 338, 340, 178 N.E.2d 309; People v. Duden, 3 Ill.2d 16, 22, 119 N.E.2d 742.) The requirement of a written memorial is satisfied by the entry in the judge's trial book.
We do not understand the defendant to contest the validity of the foregoing propositions or to deny that this would normally be a proper case for the correction of the record. He contends, however, that, after a person has been sentenced and delivered to the proper officers under a penitentiary mittimus, the trial court loses Jurisdiction over the case and is without power to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Valentine
...by the trial judge in apt time) may be used as memorials. Oskvarek v. Richter, 32 Ill.App.2d 438, 178 N.E.2d 209; People v. Glenn, 25 Ill.2d 82, 182 N.E.2d 670; People v. Michael, 23 Ill.2d 338, 178 N.E.2d 309; Chicago M & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Walsh, 150 Ill. 607, 37 N.E. 1001. We have examine......
-
People v. Latona
...judgment that was in fact entered. People v. Adams, 144 Ill.2d 381, 394, 163 Ill.Dec. 483, 581 N.E.2d 637 (1991); People v. Glenn, 25 Ill.2d 82, 85, 182 N.E.2d 670 (1962). The power to do so extends to the amendment of a mittimus (Baker v. Department of Corrections, 106 Ill.2d 100, 106, 87 ......
-
People v. Adams
...to vacate, set aside or modify the judgment. (People v. Wakeland (1958), 15 Ill.2d 265, 269, 154 N.E.2d 245; see People v. Glenn (1962), 25 Ill.2d 82, 85, 182 N.E.2d 670.) Even though the trial court may lose jurisdiction of a case, it does not lose jurisdiction over its own records and may......
-
People v. Peatry, 74--308
... ... [38 Ill.App.3d 340] We agree generally with defendant's claim that after the notice of appeal is filed the trial court does not retain jurisdiction to modify the judgment. (See People v. Glenn, 25 Ill.2d 82, 85, 182 N.E.2d 670 (1962). See also People v. Green, 34 Ill.App.3d 153, 156, 340 N.E.2d 58 (1975); People v. Kileba, 1 Ill.App.3d 563, 565, 275 N.E.2d 174 (1971).) The fact that an appeal has been taken, however, does not deprive a trial court of jurisdiction over its record or of ... ...