People v. House
| Decision Date | 20 March 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 12648,12648 |
| Citation | 26 Ill.App.3d 330,325 N.E.2d 69 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mary HOUSE and George Dawdy, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Richard J. Wilson, Deputy Defender, Springfield (John L. Swartz, Asst. Defender, Springfield, Edward R. Green, Senior Law Student, of counsel), for Mary House.
James Louis Magill, Springfield, for George Dawdy.
C. Joseph Cavanagh, State's Atty., Sangamon County, Springfield, Hugh H. Rowden, Asst. State's Atty., of counsel, for plaintiff-appellee.
The defendants were convicted of armed robbery. Each was sentenced to a term of not less than 8 nor more than 24 years in the Illinois State Penitentiary. The State appellate defender was appointed counsel for both defendants. This court upon motion of the State appellate defender vacated the appointment as to the defendant George Dawdy and appointed other counsel for him.
Counsel thus appointed for defendant Dawdy has filed a brief in conformity with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, seeking leave to withdraw, stating that in his opinion, any possible issues that could be raised upon this appeal are without merit and the pursuit of such issues on appeal would be frivolous. The possible issues upon appeal as set out in the Anders brief relate to lineup procedures, evidence of other crimes received during the course of the trial, conduct of jurors, and the length of the sentence imposed. In each case, based upon the facts in the record and the cases cited in the brief, counsel concludes that such issues are lacking in merit and could not be successfully pursued on appeal. We agree.
Upon the filing of the Anders brief, we continued counsel's motion to withdraw and gave the defendant Dawdy additional time in which to file additional points and authorities. Pursuant to that order he has filed a Pro se brief and a motion to waive an abstract and in lieu thereof to make reference to the record. That motion is allowed. The defendant Dawdy in his brief raises some points in addition to those raised by appointed counsel. We have examined those points and the record in this case and find no merit to the additional points sought to be raised Pro se by the defendant. Our review of the record persuades us that appellate counsel is correct in his conclusion that this record is free of reversible error. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is allowed. The conviction is affirmed.
The State appellate defender as counsel for Mary House has filed a brief. The only issue presented upon her appeal is that her sentence of 8 to 24 years is excessive.
The facts in this case indicate that one Mary Yates Jones, an employee of a retail establishment in Springfield, Illinois, left the store, went to an underground parking facility where her automobile was parked. As she got off the elevator, she noticed a man and woman leaning against a rail in the area of the elevator. Mrs. Jones walked to her car and as she was opening it the man came up behind her, informed her not to say anything, that this was a holdup, and that he wanted her money. Mrs. Jones began screaming. The man told her to stop screaming, pinned her against the car, and put his hand over her mouth. A woman, armed with a knife, then approached. Mrs. Jones stopped screaming; her purse fell to the floor; a wallet fell out of the purse. The man picked up the wallet, told Mrs. Jones to drive on and not to report the incident. The man and woman then walked away and Mrs. Jones caused the incident to be reported to the police.
The incident in the parking garage happened on December 1, 1973. On December 11, 1973, a clerk in a department store in Taylorville waiting on a man and a woman noticed a Master Charge card in use by the man and the woman. After they had left the particular store and gone to another store, the police were called. The man and woman were arrested and various credit cards were in the possession of the defendant House, as well as other items that had been taken from Mrs. Jones. Both the defendant Dawdy and the defendant House were taken to Springfield. Each participated in a lineup and each was positively identified by Mrs. Jones as the persons who committed the December 1, 1973, offense. Each was likewise positively identified at trial. An alibi defense was offered by the defendants. The alibi defense was impeached and the jury returned a verdict of guilty. Each defendant was sentenced to a term of 8 to 24 years and the record of prior...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Andrew B., In re
...merit to the appeal ... and the additional cost of new counsel to the taxpayers." (Id. 284 N.E.2d at p. 107.) ILLINOIS: See People v. House (1975) 26 Ill.App.3d 330 , where the appellate court wrote, "We have examined those points [raised by defendant himself] and the record in this case an......
-
People v. Atnip
...backgrounds and prospects for rehabilitation, are given substantially different sentences for the same offense. (People v. House (1975), 26 Ill.App.3d 330, 325 N.E.2d 69). The sentences received by the two defendants in this case are not substantially different. Indeed, the only aspect in w......
-
People v. Barnes
...of the public, and punishment. Klimawicze, 352 Ill. App. 3d at 31.¶ 33 We are not persuaded by defendant's reliance on People v. House, 26 Ill. App. 3d 330 (1975). There, the court reduced a sentence where one defendant was 19 years old, had only one prior conviction, for forgery, and was d......
-
People v. Perez
...were equally culpable in sentencing them to identical terms of imprisonment. The defendant relies principally on People v. House (1975), 26 Ill.App.3d 330, 325 N.E.2d 69, in which two defendants were sentenced to 8 to 24 years imprisonment for armed robbery. One defendant, Dawdy, was 28 yea......