People v. Jones
| Decision Date | 26 September 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 41581,41581 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Luther JONES, Appellant. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Joseph R. Lowery, of Pope & Driemeyer, East St. Louis, for appellant.
William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Robert H. Rice, State's Atty., Belleville (Fred G. Leach, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Joseph B. McDonnell, Asst. State's Atty., of counsel) for the People.
Luther Jones, the defendant, on October 6, 1965, pleaded guilty in the circuit court of St. Clair County to a charge of theft from the person and was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of 9 to 10 years. On October 27, 1967, acting Pro se he filed a petition under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1967, ch. 38, par. 122--1 et seq.) in which he requested that counsel be appointed to represent him. On December 8, 1967, continuing to act Pro se, he filed an amended petition, and on December 19, 1967, counsel was appointed to represent him.
Thereafter, on January 24, 1968, the trial court noted an appearance by defendant's attorney, and entered an order denying the defendant's petition. A 'reply' to the defendant's amended petition was filed in the circuit clerk's office by the State on February 2, 1968, and a second order of the trial court denying the petition was then also filed, but it was dated January 24, 1968. This order noted that counsel for both sides had been present and that argument had been heard prior to the denial of the petition. No transcript of any proceeding appears in the record. On February 1, 1968, the defendant had sent a letter from the penitentiary, which is part of the record, to his attorney in which, besides discussing the allegations of his Pro se petition and offering citations of cases he believed to be pertinent, he stated:
The defendant complains that the legal representation he received in the post-conviction proceeding, as shown by the record, was so deficient as to deny him the representation by counsel contemplated by the Post-Conviction Hearing Act.
Our statement in People v. Slaughter, 39 Ill.2d 278, at p. 285, 235 N.E.2d 566, at p. 569, regarding the responsibilities of an attorney representing an indigent prisoner in a post-conviction proceeding was: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Wilson
...People v. Slaughter (1968), 39 Ill.2d 278, 235 N.E.2d 566; People v. Garrison (1969), 43 Ill.2d 121, 251 N.E.2d 200; People v. Jones (1969), 43 Ill.2d 160, 251 N.E.2d 218.) The court has consistently interpreted Rule 651(c) as a requirement that the petitioner's counsel before the trial cou......
-
People v. Jones
...made in the pro se or amended petition are viable.” Suarez, 224 Ill.2d at 52, 308 Ill.Dec. 774, 862 N.E.2d 977. People v. Jones, 43 Ill.2d 160, 162, 251 N.E.2d 218 (1969) (it is error to dismiss a postconviction petition where there has been inadequate representation, even if “the pro se pe......
-
People v. Suarez
...566. Rule 651(c) was promulgated by this court to implement its decision in Slaughter, as well as its decisions in People v. Jones, 43 Ill.2d 160, 251 N.E.2d 218 (1969) (failure to consult is a failure to discharge an elementary responsibility of representation), and People v. Garrison, 43 ......
-
People v. Sargent
...with the petitioner. We disagree. In Alexander, as well as People v. Brown, 52 Ill.2d 227, 287 N.E.2d 663 (1972), and People v. Jones, 43 Ill.2d 160, 251 N.E.2d 218 (1969), on which Alexander relied, there is clear indication that had counsel in those cases been in substantive compliance, i......