People v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 25 September 1953 |
| Docket Number | 32872,Nos. 32589,s. 32589 |
| Citation | 415 Ill. 628,114 N.E.2d 667 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. JOHNSON et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Francis T. McCurrie, of Chicago (John M. Flaherty and John M. Branion, Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff in error Daniel Gaines.
Walter Johnson, pro se.
Latham Castle, Atty. Gen., and John Gutknecht, State's Atty., of Chicago (John T. Gallagher, Rudolph L. Janega, and Arthur F. Manning, all of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
The plaintiffs in error, herein termed defendants, were indicted in the criminal court of Cook County for armed robbery, where each defendant pleaded not guilty. Both defendants were awarded separate jury trials and both were found guilty by the verdict of a jury. Judgments were entered upon the verdicts and both defendants were thereupon sentenced by the court to the penitentiary for a minimum term of years, 'not less than life' and a maximum term of 'not more than life.'
The defendant, Walter Johnson, appearing pro se, and the defendant, Daniel Gaines, by his attorney, moved the court to vacate the sentence on the grounds that a sentence for armed robbery falls within section 2 of the Sentence and Parole Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1951, chap. 38, par. 802), and must be indeterminate rather than a definite sentence; that a sentence where the court fixed the minimum and maximum duration of imprisonment at life is a definite sentence and, therefore, invalid. The court denied the motion to vacate; judgment was entered on the respective verdicts and the defendants sentenced accordingly.
Both defendants have sued out a writ of error to review their convictions and the questions are identical. No facts are in controversy.
The sole contention of the defendants, as presented on the motion to vacate, is that a sentence for armed robbery fixing both the minimum and maximum duration of imprisonment at life is a definite rather than an indeterminate sentence.
Defendants rely upon the recent case in this court, People v. Westbrook, 411 Ill. 301, 103 N.E.2d 494, 495, 29 A.L.R.2d 1341, where the exact principle was stated in the following language, 'For these reasons, we are of the opinion that the imposition of a sentence for armed robbery with both minimum and maximum terms fixed at life imprisonment is invalid.'
The provisions of the Sentence and Parole Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1951, chap. 38, par. 801 et seq.) have frequently been the subject of comment in the decisions of this court, and we have consistently held that section 1 of that act provides definite sentences for four crimes specifically mentioned and indeterminate sentences for all other crimes. Section 2 requires the courts, in imposing sentences for crimes not specifically mentioned in section 1, to fix the minimum and maximum limits of imprisonment. People v. Westbrook, 411 Ill. 301, 103 N.E.2d 494, 29 A.L.R2d 1341. The case cited also held that a sentence for armed robbery falls within the terms of section 2 of the Sentence and Parole Act and must be an indeterminate rather than a definite sentence; citing People...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Minnis, In re
...... the adjustment and social rehabilitation of the individual analyzed as a human composite of intellectual, emotional and genetic factors.' (People v. Morse (1964) 60 Cal.2d 631, 642--643, 36 Cal.Rptr. 201, 207, 388 P.2d 33, 39; italics added; fns. omitted.) . We have similarly ... (See, Johnson, Multiple Punishment and Consecutive Sentences: Reflections on the Neal Doctrine (1970) 58 Cal.L.Rev. 357, 382.) If every offender in a like legal ......
-
People v. Purcell
...691 N.E.2d 797. Defendant also cites to a 1953 case for the proposition that a life term is a determinate sentence. People v. Johnson, 415 Ill. 628, 630, 114 N.E.2d 667 (1953). There, the court held that a sentence “ ‘from life to life’ ” for armed robbery was a determinate sentence. But th......
-
People v. Kuczynski
......38, par. 501.) We have held that the sentence for armed robbery must be indeterminate rather than definite. (People v. Westbrook, 411 Ill. 301, 103 N.E.2d 494, 29 A.L.R.2d 1341; People v. Johnson, 415 Ill. 628, 114 N.E.2d 667.) Since a sentence to life imprisonment is not an indeterminate sentence, defendant, had he been validly convicted, was not properly . Page 296. sentenced. See People v. Harris, Ill., 178 N.E.2d 291, decided this term. The judgment is reversed and ......