People v. Hall, 76-891

Decision Date22 November 1977
Docket NumberNo. 76-891,76-891
Citation55 Ill.App.3d 341,371 N.E.2d 26,13 Ill.Dec. 331
Parties, 13 Ill.Dec. 331 PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard HALL (otherwise called Charles Houston), Defendant-Appellant.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 26

371 N.E.2d 26
55 Ill.App.3d 341, 13 Ill.Dec. 331
PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Richard HALL (otherwise called Charles Houston), Defendant-Appellant.
No. 76-891.
Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Second Division.
Nov. 22, 1977.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 22, 1977.

[55 Ill.App.3d 342] James J. Doherty, Public Defender of Cook County, Chicago, for defendant-appellant; John M. Kalnins, Asst. Public Defender, of counsel.

Bernard Carey, State's Atty. of Cook County, Chicago, for plaintiff-appellee; Laurence J. Bolon, Richard J. Barr, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel.

PUSATERI, Justice:

Defendant, Richard Hall, entered a plea of guilty to robbery and was sentenced to 5 years probation. On February 6, 1976, a finding of violation of probation was made, and defendant was sentenced to a term of 3 to 9 years. While defendant's only issue for review is whether the criminal division of the circuit court had jurisdiction to hear the original charge against him, the initial determination is whether such matter may be raised for the first time in an appeal from proceedings to revoke probation.

Defendant was indicted for armed robbery on June 13, 1973. On August 17, 1973, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, alleging he was 16 years old on the date of the alleged crime in 1972, and the criminal court had no jurisdiction to hear the case because no hearing was conducted to waive juvenile jurisdiction as required by section 2-7(3) of the Juvenile Court Act. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 37, par. 702-7(3).) The State filed an answer to the

Page 27

[13 Ill.Dec. 332] motion in which it conceded defendant [55 Ill.App.3d 343] was a minor on the day of the crime and no hearing had been held pursuant to section 2-7(3); but it maintained that juvenile court jurisdiction had been waived because defendant had told the arresting officers he was 20 years old. The court denied defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment, and on May 2, 1974, defendant pleaded guilty to robbery. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 38, par. 18-1.) He was sentenced to a term of 5 years probation, and no direct appeal was taken from this judgment. On February 6, 1976, defendant was found to be in violation of probation. He was sentenced as heretofore indicated, and this appeal followed.

Defendant contends the court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment on the original charge, and the criminal court was without jurisdiction to hear the case. Section...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • People v. Henderson, 1–09–0923.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 17 Noviembre 2011
  • People v. Arnold
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 31 Mayo 2001
    ... ... People v. Hall, 55 Ill.App.3d 341, 343, 13 Ill.Dec. 331, 371 N.E.2d 26, 27 (1977) ... As Hall correctly states, "[ People v. ] Smith [59 Ill.2d 236, 240, 319 ... ...
  • Greene, In re
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 24 Mayo 1979
    ... ... 525 ... In re Irish D. GREENE, a Minor, Appellee ... Appeal of the PEOPLE of the State of Illinois (two cases) ... In re Edward EICHER, a Minor, Appellee ... In re Marvin ... 37, par. 702-7; People v. Henderson (1971), 2 Ill.App.3d 285, 288, 276 N.E.2d 377; People v. Hall (1977), 55 Ill.App.3d 341, 343, 13 Ill.Dec. 331, 371 N.E.2d 26; see People v. Smith (1974), 59 ... ...
  • Johnson v. King, 62520
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 22 Noviembre 1977
    ...no reference to the Act's notice requirements. Neither does Arnolt. And, under Arnolt, the governmental entity is liable for the wilful [55 Ill.App.3d 341] and wanton acts of its employees committed in the scope of their employment. The notice requirement of section 8-102 thus encourages an......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT