People v. Hurt

• Decision Date: 23 May 1956
• Docket Number: No. 33789,33789
• Citation: People v. Hurt, 134 N.E.2d 804, 8 Ill.2d 491 (Ill. 1956)
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Payne HURT, Plaintiff in Error.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Page 804

134 N.E.2d 804

8 Ill.2d 491

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Payne HURT, Plaintiff in Error.

No. 33789.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

May 23, 1956.

Payne Hurt, pro se.

Latham Castle, Atty. Gen., and Frank H. Masters, Jr., State's Atty., Joliet (Fred G. Leach, Decatur, and Edwin A. Strugala, Chicago, of counsel), for the People.

DAVIS, Justice.

Upon his plea of guilty in the circuit court of Will County to an indictment charging escape from the penitentiary in violation of section 17 of the Illinois State Penitentiary Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1953, chap. 108, par. 121) the defendant was sentenced to a term of not less than one year nor more than ten years, in accordance with the provisions of the act.

The defendant, appearing pro se, prosecutes this writ of error and assigns as error that the record does not show that the grand jury which returned the indictment was properly summoned and empanelled, and that a plea of not guilty was entered; and that the indictment does not allege the place of the offense as required by law.

The record before us fails to show that the question relative to the grand jury was raised in the trial court by motion to quash, challenge to the array, or otherwise. Since this question was not presented in the trial court it will not be considered for the first time upon appeal. People v. Max, 391 Ill. 310, 63 N.E.2d 511; People v. Hawkins, 306 Ill. 29, 137 N.E. 385; People v. Knox, 302 Ill. 471, 134 N.E. 923.

The defendant contends that a plea of not guilty to the indictment is necessary to the validity of the judgment of conviction. This is true where there is a trial before a jury or a court. A person indicted for a criminal offense cannot be put on trial without a plea of not guilty, for without such a plea, there is nothing to try. However, the defendant in the case at bar was properly arraigned; his rights were explained to him; he voluntarily entered a general plea of guilty, persisted in such plea after its consequences were fully explained, and the plea was accepted, all in accordance with section 4 of division XIII of the Criminal Code. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1953, chap. 38, par. 732.) For the purpose of joining issue, a plea of guilty operates in the same manner as a plea of not guilty and a judgment entered upon such a plea where properly and understandingly made, will be sustained. People v. Shoffner, 400 Ill. 174, 79 N.E.2d 200. Defendant's plea of guilty admitted the facts alleged in the indictment and no further or other plea was necessary to sustain the validity of the judgment and sentence. People v. Day, 404 Ill. 268, 88 N.E.2d 727; People v. French, 387 Ill. 16, 55 N.E.2d 53.

Defendant also contends that the indictment lays the venue of the crime at Stateville, Illinois, which is nonexistent, there being no incorporated or recorded locality of that name; and that therefore, the indictment is fatally defective. The defendant, however, has failed to abstract count I of the indictment which count is shown in the supplemental abstract of the People and which reads as follows:

'And the Grand Jurors...