People v. Hinton, No. 44302
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | UNDERWOOD |
| Citation | 287 N.E.2d 657,52 Ill.2d 239 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Edward HINTON, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 20 September 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 44302 |
Page 657
v.
Edward HINTON, Appellant.
Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender, Chicago (Suzanne M. Kohut and James J.
Page 658
Doherty, Asst. Public Defenders, of counsel), for petitioner.William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Edward V. Hanrahan, State's Atty., Chicago (James B. Zagel, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Elmer C. Kissane and Mark T. Zubor, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), for the People.
[52 Ill.2d 240] UNDERWOOD, Chief Justice:
The defendant, Edward Hinton, filed a petition under section 72 of the Civil Practice Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 110, par. 72) in the circuit court of Cook County to vacate his prior conviction in that court for attempted murder and armed robbery. After a hearing his petition was denied, and on appeal the Appellate Court, First District, affirmed. People v. Hinton (1971), 132 Ill.App.2d ---, 270 N.E.2d 93. We granted leave to appeal.
The defendant and three others were charged in five separate indictments with the commission of a series of criminal acts at different locations in Chicago between the hours of 1 A.M. and 3 A.M. on May 21, 1967. In point of time the various acts apparently occurred in the same order as the numerical sequence of the indictment numbers. No. 67--1961 charged the murder of Dwight Wynne; No. 67--1967 charged aggravated battery on the person of Cleveland Wells; No. 67--1968 charged attempted murder and robbery of John Hall and Lily Starkey; No. 67--1969 charged attempted murder and armed robbery of Mr. and Mrs. J. C. Your, Lorenzo Loving and Jerome Sauls; and No. 67--1970 charged robbery of Mr. and Mrs. Delton Bailey. For purposes of this opinion these indictments will be referred to as indictments 1 through 5 respectively.
The State chose to proceed first on indictment 4 which charged attempted murder and armed robbery of Mr. and Mrs. Your, Lorenzo Loving and Jerome Sauls. Counsel was appointed to represent the defendant, and he entered a plea of not guilty. On June 15, 1967, the court ordered a Behavior Clinic examination of the defendant for the purpose of ascertaining his competency to stand trial. On June 29, 1967, William H. Haines, M.D. filed his report of psychiatric examination which concluded with the diagnosis: 'Sociopathic Personality Disturbance. He knows the nature of the charge and is able to cooperate with his counsel.'
[52 Ill.2d 241] During a pretrial appearance in court to seek a continuance, defendant was found guilty of direct contempt of court for what the court found to be unprovoked assault on a deputy sheriff in the courtroom. Thereafter, additional motions for psychiatric examination were made and allowed, and on January 10, 1968, another order was entered by the court directing a further ther Behavior Clinic examination to determine competency and sanity. Defendant was again examined by Dr. Haines who filed another report of psychiatic examination on January 31, 1968. The report made reference to information obtained from another agency which knew him from 1961 until 1966 to the effect that defendant was 'an emotionally immature, inadequate, hostile, narcissistic youth who had a medical background of asthma and headaches.' Although he lacked training, supervision and guidance, 'his formal mental status disclosed no defects in the sensorium, orientation or memory' and 'he was not mentally ill and not in need of mental treatment in a psychiatric facility.' As in the case of the previous report, the diagnosis was: 'Sociopathic Personality Disturbance. He knows the nature of the charge and is able to cooperate with his counsel.'
Prior to commencement of the trial on April 23, 1968, the Behavior Clinic reports were made a part of the record and the following colloquy took place between the trial judge and defense counsel:
'The Court: It is your opinion, based upon your conversations with him, that he knows the nature of the charge pending against him and is able to cooperate with you?
Page 659
Defense Counsel: Yes, sir, he can cooperate, yes, sir. I have been satisfied right along on that.'
The trial then commenced. There was testimony that at about 2:30 A.M. on May 21, 1967, Mr. and Mrs. Your were returning home from a party when they were stopped on the street by the defendant and three other persons with guns drawn. Defendant held his gun to Mr. Your's back and said 'hold it, this is a holdup.' Mr. Your told his [52 Ill.2d 242] wife to be quiet. At this point two young men, Lorenzo Loving and Jerome Sauls, happened by on the street and were also stopped by defendant and his companions. Mr. and Mrs. Your, Loving and Sauls were searched by the four men. Eighty-five dollars in cash was taken from Mr. Your. Defendant took Mrs. Your's purse and removed a bottle of whiskey from it. He then searched her person, and upon finding no money, he said, 'We might as well shoot that bitch because she ain't got no money.'
Defendant then shot Mrs. Your--first in the face and then in the back. Mr. Your...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Haynes, No. 85180
...would have prevented its rendition. People v. Berland, 74 Ill.2d 286, 313-14, 24 Ill.Dec. 508, 385 N.E.2d 649 (1978); People v. Hinton, 52 Ill.2d 239, 243, 287 N.E.2d 657 (1972). A section 2-1401 petition, however, is "not designed to provide a general review of all trial errors nor to subs......
-
People v. Berland, Nos. 50012
...would have prevented the judgment." (Ephraim v. People (1958), 13 Ill.2d 456, 458, 150 N.E.2d 152, 153; see also People v. Hinton (1972), 52 Ill.2d 239, 243, 287 N.E.2d 657.) Since most of the exhibits relied upon in the appellate brief were incorporated in the post-trial proceedings and in......
-
People v. Stewart, No. 77-13
...facts existed which, had they been known at the time judgment was entered, would have prevented its rendition. (People v. Hinton (1972), 52 Ill.2d 239, 243, 287 N.E.2d 657; see also People v. Touhy (1947), 397 Ill. 19, 24, 72 N.E.2d 827.) It must be a fact which influenced the court in its ......
-
People v. Vincent, No. 101477.
...cases as well as to civil cases. People v. Sanchez, 131 Ill.2d 417, 420, 137 Ill.Dec. 629, 546 N.E.2d 574 (1989); People v. Hinton, 52 Ill.2d 239, 287 N.E.2d 657 This court has consistently held that proceedings under section 2-1401 are subject to the usual rules of civil practice. Ostendor......
-
People v. Haynes, No. 85180
...would have prevented its rendition. People v. Berland, 74 Ill.2d 286, 313-14, 24 Ill.Dec. 508, 385 N.E.2d 649 (1978); People v. Hinton, 52 Ill.2d 239, 243, 287 N.E.2d 657 (1972). A section 2-1401 petition, however, is "not designed to provide a general review of all trial errors nor to subs......
-
People v. Vincent, 101477.
...cases as well as to civil cases. People v. Sanchez, 131 Ill.2d 417, 420, 137 Ill.Dec. 629, 546 N.E.2d 574 (1989); People v. Hinton, 52 Ill.2d 239, 287 N.E.2d 657 This court has consistently held that proceedings under section 2-1401 are subject to the usual rules of civil practice. Ostendor......
-
People v. Stewart, 77-13
...facts existed which, had they been known at the time judgment was entered, would have prevented its rendition. (People v. Hinton (1972), 52 Ill.2d 239, 243, 287 N.E.2d 657; see also People v. Touhy (1947), 397 Ill. 19, 24, 72 N.E.2d 827.) It must be a fact which influenced the court in its ......
-
People v. Berland, s. 50012
...would have prevented the judgment." (Ephraim v. People (1958), 13 Ill.2d 456, 458, 150 N.E.2d 152, 153; see also People v. Hinton (1972), 52 Ill.2d 239, 243, 287 N.E.2d 657.) Since most of the exhibits relied upon in the appellate brief were incorporated in the post-trial proceedings and in......