People v. Healey
| Citation | 132 Ill.App.2d 190,267 N.E.2d 753 |
| Decision Date | 12 February 1971 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 70--142 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George H. HEALEY, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Morton Zwick, Ill. Defender Project, Chicago, E. Roger Horsky, Ill. Defender Project, Elgin, for defendant-appellant.
Wm. V. Hopf, State's Atty., Ralph J. Gust, Jr., Asst. State's Atty., Wheaton, for plaintiff-appellee.
Defendant was sentenced to a term of 40--75 years upon his mid-trial plea of guilty to the murder of his wife. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1967, Ch. 38, Sec. 9--1(a) (1)). He asks that his sentence be reduced to the statutory minimum of 14 years. We have concluded that the circumstances do not warrant the exercise of our authority to reduce sentences. (Supreme Court Rule 615(b)), Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 110A, § 615(b).
The killing was particularly brutal and unprovoked. After defendant had missed his wife with a shot which landed between her and a neighbor in whose apartment the victim sought refuge, he then fired two bullets one of which went through his wife's body, causing injury to the liver and extensive bleeding in the abdominal cavity. After this the gun apparently jammed and defendant manually ejected two bullets, then struck his victim with the butt of the gun a minimum of ten blows to the face and the head, crushing her skull.
The testimony adduced and the reports received at a comprehensive hearing in aggravation and mitigation support the sentence. The history of defendant's marital problems culminating in his wife's refusal of reconciliation in no way mitigates the killing. It is apparent from the record that the trial court considered the evidence of the extent of defendant's drinking prior to the crime (with no evidence that he was intoxicated when he committed the act); the relationship of the victim and the defendant; and the psychiatric reports 1 but concluded that these factors did not suggest any greater leniency than shown in the sentence, considering the vicious and unprovoked nature of the crime. The sentence does not constitute a great departure from the fundamental law and its spirit or purpose, nor is it disproportionate to the nature of the offense, and therefore we will not disturb it. See The People v. Caldwell, 39 Ill.2d 346, 355, 356, 236 N.E.2d 706 (1968); The People v. Hicks, 35 Ill.2d 390, 397, 398, 220 N.E.2d 461 (1966); People v. Buell, 120 Ill.App.2d 367, 371--373, 256 N.E.2d 845 (1970); People v. Richards, 120 Ill.App.2d 313, 353, 256 N.E.2d 475 (1970...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. ex rel. Healey v. Cannon
...sentence remained undisturbed following an appeal which challenged only the excessiveness of the sentence imposed, People v. Healey, 132 Ill.App.2d 190, 267 N.E.2d 753 (1971), and leave to appeal that decision was denied by the Illinois Supreme Petitioner sought post conviction relief in th......
-
People v. Healey
...the conviction to this court on the sole issue of the excessiveness of sentence and the sentence was affirmed. People v. Healey (1971), 132 Ill.App.2d 190, 267 N.E.2d 753. During the appeal the defendant filed a Pro se petition for post-conviction relief which was later amended by court app......
-
Bernardi, In re
... ... And it has been recently stated in The People v. Fiddler, 45 Ill.2d 181, 185, 258 N.E.2d 359, 361: ... 'That section requires an autopsy when the cause of death cannot be definitely established ... ...