People v. Jackson

• Decision Date: 19 December 1973
• Docket Number: No. 58630,58630
• Citation: 306 N.E.2d 725,16 Ill.App.3d 621
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Respondent-Appellee, v. Frank JACKSON, Petitioner-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 725

306 N.E.2d 725

16 Ill.App.3d 621

PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Respondent-Appellee, v. Frank JACKSON, Petitioner-Appellant.

No. 58630.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fourth Division.

Dec. 19, 1973.

Paul Bradley, Deputy Director, Ill. Defender Project, Chicago, Steven L. Clark, Asst. Dist. Defender, for petitioner-appellant.

Bernard Carey, State's Atty., County of Cook, Chicago, for respondent-appellee; Kenneth L. Gillis, Sharon Hope Grossman, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel.

DIERINGER, Justice:

This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of Cook County sustaining a motion to dismiss a post-conviction petition.

The only issue presented on appeal is whether the failure of defendant's counsel to amend the Pro se post-conviction petition amounted to inadequate representation.

The defendant, Frank Jackson, was indicted for the murder of Sally Strickland on June 28, 1967. The defendant was found guilty of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced to a term of from fourteen to twenty years in the Illinois State Penitentiary. The conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. 130 Ill.App.2d 170, 264 N.E.2d 462.

In March, 1971, the defendant filed a Pro se post-conviction petition in which he alleged his indigence and requested the appointment of counsel other than the public defender. The petition alleged that (1) the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination had been violated; (2) the conviction was based on hearsay evidence; (3) testimony at the trial was false and tainted; (4) the police improperly impounded the defendant's car; and (5) the defendant was denied a speedy trial.

On October 26, 1972, the State filed a motion to dismiss the post-conviction petition. The motion to dismiss was sustained by the trial court.

The defendant contends the failure of the public defender to amend the Pro se petition in this case amounts to inadequate representation by counsel under the Post- Conviction Hearing Act (Ill.Rev.Stat., 1967, Ch. 38, § 122--1 et seq.). The defendant bases his contention on the decision in People v. Slaughter, (1968) 39 Ill.2d 278, 235 N.E.2d 566, wherein the Supreme Court set out standards for adequate representation by counsel under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act. The court held an attorney should consult with the petitioner, read the record of the proceedings which resulted in the conviction from which relief is sought, and then amend the petition so it would adequately present the prisoner's constitutional contentions. The defendant argues the above standards were not met by the public defender where no amendments were made to the Pro se petition.

We believe the trial court properly dismissed the post-conviction petition. The record indicates the public defender conscientiously followed the requirements of People v. Slaughter. He stated he corresponded with the defendant by mail on numerous occasions and visited him in the penitentiary. The public defender's certificate stated:

'Based on my discussions with the petitioner, study of the trial records, and study of the Appellate briefs and the decision affirming petitioner's petition (sic.) It have not amended or changed the petitioner's Pro se petition since I believe it fully and adequately reflects all...