People v. Hart
| Decision Date | 10 April 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72--184,72--184 |
| Citation | 10 Ill.App.3d 857,295 N.E.2d 63 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Guy HART, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Bruce Stratton, Illinois Defender Project, Ottawa, for defendant-appellant.
Martin Rudman State's Atty., Joliet, for plaintiff-appellee.
Defendant Guy Hart was convicted of robbery in a jury trial in the circuit court of Will County and was sentenced on June 28, 1971, to not less than three nor more than ten years in the Illinois State Penitentiary.
Following the filing of notice of appeal, the trial court appointed the District Defender of the Illinois Defender Project as counsel on appeal for defendant. Appellate counsel has now filed in this court a Motion for Leave to Withdraw and a Brief in support thereof, pursuant to the precedent in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493. Appellate counsel indicates that after careful examination of the record in the cause before us and a thorough consideration of every possible issue, appellate counsel has concluded that an appeal would be wholly frivolous and could not possibly be successful.
From the record, it appears that between 4:00 A.M. and 4:30 A.M. on February 4, 1971, Alfred Mortenson was working as a clerk in the Day and Night Food Mart, when a man entered the premises and went to the back of the store. Soon thereafter, the man appeared at the checkout counter wearing nylon pantyhose over his head and stated, 'This is a stick-up young man.' The clerk, Mortenson, testified that the man had his right hand in his coat pocket and that it appeared that something was protruding from his pocket. Mortenson then placed all the bills from the cash register into a brown paper bag and the robbery dropped a pair of Boss gloves into the bag and left. A customer in the store, Phyllis Kutzschebauch, corroborated Mortenson's version of the robbery.
Mortenson testified that he placed about $150 into the bag, mostly in 'singles' (approximately 75 to 100), a 'couple of tens,' and a 'couple of fives.' He also stated that he noticed the man's face when he entered the store and, also, when the man took off the nylon stocking when he was leaving. He stated that the robber was wearing a dark coat with a fur collar, a brown shirt and brown pants. Mortenson made an in-court identification of defendant.
State Trooper James Vaughn testified for the prosecution and stated that while he was in his patrol car he received a radio message relating to the robbery and shortly thereafter stopped defendant in an automobile, which resembled the car described in the radio message, for failure to dim the headlights. When Officer Kapella of the Joliet Police arrived at the scene he searched defendant's automobile and his coat. From the automobile he seized a bag containing paper money (91 one dollar bills, 4 five dollar bills, and 3 ten dollar bills). He also found a pair of Boss gloves, and from the coat he took a pair of woman's pantyhose. These items, and also the brown slacks and black coat that defendant was wearing at the time of the arrest, were admitted in evidence.
At the arraignment on March 3, 1971, the court appointed Mr. Murer, the public defender, to represent the defendant. At that time the defendant said that he had Mr. Murer to represent him which was 'fine' with defendant. On April 5, 1971, the day the case was set for trial, a private attorney appeared and moved for leave to substitute for the public defender If the court would grant a 30-day continuance. The public defender stated that although he was prepared to go to trial he had no objection to the substitution of counsel. The court denied the motion for substitution because it was conditioned on a 30-day continuance.
A granting of a continuance for substitution of counsel is a matter resting within the sound judicial discretion of the trial court. (People v. Clark, 9 Ill.2d 46, 137 N.E.2d 54.) A conviction will not be reversed because of the denial of such motion unless it appears that the refusal of additional time in some manner embarrassed the accused in preparing his defense and prejudiced his rights. (People v. Solomon, 24 Ill.2d 586, 182 N.E.2d 736.) Nothing in the record indicates that defendant was prejudiced in any manner by the refusal to allow the continuance for the substitution of counsel. Defendant never expressed dissatisfaction with ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Bryant
...of our appellate court opinions. (See People v. Witted (1979), 79 Ill.App.3d 156, 34 Ill.Dec. 393, 398 N.E.2d 68; People v. Hart (1973), 10 Ill.App.3d 857, 295 N.E.2d 63; People v. Hudson (1972), 7 Ill.App.3d 333, 287 N.E.2d 297.) There was in this case no such pressure, coercion or suggest......
-
People v. Spurlark
...the surrounding circumstances, the trial court's denial of Adam's request was not an abuse of discretion. See People v. Hart (1973), 10 Ill.App.3d 857, 295 N.E.2d 63. Finally, Gant, Pincham's associate, requested and was denied leave to enter his appearance on defendant's behalf. It is impo......
-
People v. Duarte, s. 77-1481
...successfully claimed to have had an effect on the witness's identification. The answer is that it cannot. (See People v. Hart (3rd Dist. 1973), 10 Ill.App.3d 857, 294 N.E.2d 63.) Moreover, while an opportunity for an impermissible foreseeable encounter with the defendant may have existed wh......
-
People v. Smith
...43 Ill.App.3d 649, 2 Ill.Dec. 174, 357 N.E.2d 151 (defendant only subject in photo array without a shirt on); People v. Hart (3d Dist.1973), 10 Ill.App.3d 857, 295 N.E.2d 63 (defendant's picture only one with date on it, in addition to being largest photo in array); People v. Hudson (3d Dis......