People v. Heirens
| Decision Date | 29 September 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 40628,40628 |
| Citation | 230 N.E.2d 875,38 Ill.2d 294 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. William HEIRENS, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Calvin Sawyier, Chicago, appointed by the court, for appellant.
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield, (Richard A. Michael and Philip J. Rock, Asst. Attys., Gen., of counsel) for appellee.
This is the third time that this court has considered this case. What has gone before must be stated, to explain how it happens that the case is before this court again, and why we dispose of it as we do.
On September 4, 1946, William Heirens, hereafter defendant, who was represented by retained counsel, pleaded guilty to three charges of murder and to 26 additional charges of burglaries, robberies and assaults. He was sentenced to the penitentiary for life on each of the murder indictments, the sentences to run consecutively. Statutory sentences were imposed on the other indictments, which ran concurrently with each other, but consecutively to the sentences on the charges of murder. On July 8, 1952, the defendant filed a petition seeking relief under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1951, chap. 38, pars. 826--832). A hearing was had, and judgment was entered denying the relief sought. On writ of error (No. 33165) to review that judgment, this court appointed Calvin Sawyier and Arthur R. Seder as Amici curiae, in addition to the attorney who appeared for the defendant, and directed them to file a brief on behalf of the defendant. In September of 1954, this court affirmed the judgment. (4 Ill.2d 131, 122 N.E.2d 231.) The Supreme Court of the United States denied Certiorari. 349 U.S. 947, 75 S.Ct. 876, 99 L.Ed. 1273.
In November of 1963, the defendant filed a petition for a writ of error under our Rule 65--1, (Ill.Rev.Stat.1963, chap. 110, par. 101.65--1.) which provided for delayed discretionary review in certain cases. (See People v. Griffin, 9 Ill.2d 164, 137 N.E.2d 485; People v. Johnson, 15 Ill.2d 244, 154 N.E.2d 274, cert. denied 359 U.S. 930, 949, 79 S.Ct. 614, 3 L.Ed.2d 632.) In that petition (No. 3552) the defendant asserted (1) that the trial court erred in failing to hold an inquiry into his sanity at the time the crimes were committed; (2) that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences; (3) that the trial climate and circumstances were not such as are required before a judgment of conviction can validly be entered; and (4) that the trial court erred by failing to preserve a complete record of the proceedings at the time of his convictions. The defendant's request that counsel be appointed to represent him in this court upon his petition for a writ of error was denied.
In May of 1964, the petition for a writ of error was denied in a memorandum order which held that the defendant's first and third contentions had been disposed of by our previous decision in People v. heirens, 4 Ill.2d 131, 142, 143, 122 N.E.2d 231, rejected the defendant's attack upon the consecutive sentences, and held, upon the authority of Norvell v. State of Illinois, 373 U.S. 420, 83 S.Ct. 1366, 10 L.Ed.2d 456, that the defendant's final contention, which was based upon the fact that the transcript of a portion of the hearing in mitigation and aggravation was not available because the court reporter had died and his notes could not be transcribed, did not require a reversal of the judgments of conviction. The Supreme Court of the United States denied Certiorari. Heirens v. Illinois, 379 U.S. 868, 85 S.Ct. 140, 13 L.Ed.2d 71.
Thereafter a Habeas corpus petition was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The district court denied relief and the defendant appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. On April 11, 1967, that court filed the following opinion:
'
'So that the Supreme Court of Illinois may expeditiously take a fresh look at the substantial contentions raised by this habeas corpus petition, and in the interests of comity (Giles v. State of Maryland, 385 U.S. 66, 87 S.Ct. 793), the proceedings before us will be held in abeyance for a reasonable period of time in order to afford the petitioner the opportunity to pursue his remedies before that tribunal.
'We are appreciative of the exemplary services of Calvin P. Sawyier of the Illinois Bar who served as court-appointed counsel for petitioner here and in the District Court.'
After the order of the court of appeals was entered, leave was sought on behalf of the defendant to file in this court a 'Petition for Exercise of Jurisdiction.' Leave was granted and this court entered an order which recited the action taken by the court of appeals and continued:
'The petition now filed in this Court contends that petitioner's constitutional rights were violated in several respects at the time of his convictions and that these alleged violations were not waived by his pleas of guilty. It requests that this Court make a new and independent determination of the claims advanced in the petition, based upon the records of petitioner's former appeals in 3552 and in 33165, a post-conviction writ of error. (4 Ill.2d 131, 122 N.E.2d 231), and the record before the Federal Court in the habeas corpus case. It is also requested this this Court take judicial notice of that this Court take judicial notice of certain allegedly prejudicial newspaper clippings. Petitioner requests that counsel be appointed to represent him, that the petition be set for hearing at an early date, and that petitioner be granted new trials.
'It is ordered that
(1) Calvin Sawyier is appointed counsel for petitioner.
(2) The judgment of this Court in People v. Heirens, No. 3552 is vacated and a new hearing is granted.
(3) Petitioner shall file his brief on the issues raised by the petition for a writ of error in No. 3552, or by an amended petition in that case, on or before May 24, 1967. The State shall file its brief on or before June 8, 1967. Reply brief, if any, to be filed on or before June 16, 1967. Cause to stand for hearing at the June 1967 session of this Court.
(4) The petitioner and the State are also requested to brief and argue the question of the authority and the propriety of a new and independent determination by this Court, as urged in the petition and suggested in the opinion of the Court of Appeals.'
The Court of Appeals was influenced in reaching its conclusion by the Per curiam decision of the Supreme Court in Milani v. Illinois, (1967) 386 U.S. 12, 87 S.Ct. 874, 17 L.Ed. 702. In that case the defendant, Joseph Milani, had been convicted upon his plea of guilty to a charge of murder. He was represented by the public defender and another appointed attorney. His plea was entered after the trial had commenced and a witness for the prosecution had testified to his admission of guilt. The defendant appealed to this court and moved that counsel be appointed to represent him. The motion was denied, the case was considered on the defendant's Pro se brief, and the judgment was affirmed. (People v. Milani, 34 Ill.2d 524, 216 N.E.2d 816.) The defendant filed a petition for Certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States, and on February 13, 1967, that court entered the following memorandum order:
In Douglas v. People of State of California the defendant had pleaded not guilty, and had been convicted after a trial. The California Court of Appeals itself examined the record and because it found no ground for reversal it affirmed the conviction without appointing counsel.
In cases in which a defendant who pleaded not guilty was convicted after a trial, it has been the practice of this court to appoint counsel to represent the defendant on review. Under the rules of this court, however, a plea of guilty was not permitted to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Heirens
...affirmed the imposition of consecutive sentences as proper and denied defendant's motion for a writ of error. (People v. Heirens (1967), 38 Ill.2d 294, 230 N.E.2d 875.) For the third time, the United States Supreme Court denied review of defendant's case. Heirens v. Illinois (1968), 390 U.S......
-
People v. Ledferd
... ... Prior to such statute, it was held that consecutive sentences could be imposed under the Common Law. People v. Vraniak, 5 Ill.2d 384, 125 N.E.2d 513, and that such sentences were authorized where the accused had committed distinct offenses which merited separate penalties. People v. Heirens, 38 Ill.2d 294 at 302, 230 N.E.2d 875; People v. Loftus, 395 Ill. 479, 70 N.E.2d 573; People v. Decker, 347 Ill. 258, 179 N.E. 827 ... Reviewing court were first authorized to reduce sentences imposed by the trial court under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Chap ... ...
-
United States ex rel. Heirens v. Pate
... ... That the suspect's permission had not been granted or even sought was disquieting to Dr. Grinker according to his subsequent testimony: "I remember very well that there was a struggle with 405 F.2d 455 myself about this but I felt that Mr. Tuohy was the State's Attorney, the people's attorney, my attorney, and therefore if he asked me to determine the mental status of this boy I should go ahead, which I did." ... Accordingly, a sodium pentothal injection, which rendered the petitioner unconscious, was administered. Later, after he was aroused to a level ... ...
-
State v. Andrews
... ... State v. Boag, 104 Ariz. 362, 453 P.2d 508 (1969); The People v. Heirens, 38 Ill.2d 294, 230 N.E.2d 875 (1967); The People v. Vraniak, 5 Ill.2d 384, 125 N.E.2d 513, cert. den. 349 U.S. 963, 75 S.Ct. 895, 99 ... ...