People v. Lance

Decision Date28 September 1962
Docket NumberNos. 37028,37029,s. 37028
Citation185 N.E.2d 221,25 Ill.2d 455
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Phillip A. LANCE and Eugene Herron, Plaintiffs in Error.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

Phillip Lance and Eugene Heron, pro se.

William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and James V. Cunningham, State's Atty., Peoria (Fred G. Leach and E. Michael O'Brien, Asst. Attys. Gen., and George R. Kennedy, Asst. State's Atty., of counsel), for defendant in error.

SCHAEFER, Justice.

The defendants, Phillip Lance and Eugene Heron, were arrested on February 11, 1961, and on February 22 they were indicted for kidnapping by the grant jury of Peoria County. On June 13, 1961, they moved to dismiss the indictment for want of prosecution and their motion was granted on June 14. On June 20, 1961, they moved that the order of June 14 be vacated and the indictment reinstated. This motion was granted, and they then pleaded guilty and were sentenced to not less than one nor more than five years imprisonment. On these writs of error, which have been consolidated in this court, the defendants assert (1) that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to vacate its order of June 14 which dismissed the indictment for want of prosecution, and (2) that they were deprived of their constitutional rights by the incompetence of the public defender who was appointed to represent them.

The attack upon the trial court's jurisdiction to vacate the order dismissing the indictment rests upon an exception to the settled power of a common-law court over its judgments within term time. The duration of that power is today measured by a period of thirty days from the entry of the judgment, rather than by the expiration of a term of court, but the authority of the court during that period is the same as the historic common-law power of the court over its judgments during term time.

The exception upon which the defendants rely has been announced in those criminal cases in which it has been held that the court loses jurisdiction over its judgment at once when a convicted defendant pays his fine or begins to serve his sentence. The judgment is then said to have been 'executed,' and it is held that the court is without power to set it aside, even within the thirty-day equivalent of term time. See, e. g., People v. Wakeland, 15 Ill.2d 265, 154 N.E.2d 245; People v. Putnam, 398 Ill. 421, 76 N.E.2d 183.

Although the defendants concede that there is no precedent for their position, they argue that the judgment of June 14, which dismissed the indictment, should be similarly characterized as an 'executed' judgment which the trial court was without authority to vacate. But we see no reason to stretch the exception to the normal rule to embrace this case. Indeed, we think that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • People v. Heil, 75-132
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • May 26, 1977
    ...the general rule is that the jurisdiction of the court terminates after 30 days following the entry thereof. People v. Lance, 25 Ill.2d 455, 185 N.E.2d 221; People v. McCloskey, 2 Ill.App.3d 892, 274 N.E.2d 358; see generally, Ill.Rev.Stat.1975, ch. 110A, pars. 604(d) and In the case at bar......
  • People v. Hills
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • February 22, 1980
    ...was imposed, whichever occurred first. People v. Heil (1978), 71 Ill.2d 458, 17 Ill.Dec. 673, 376 N.E.2d 1002; People v. Lance (1962), 25 Ill.2d 455, 185 N.E.2d 221; People v. Wakeland (1958), 15 Ill.2d 265, 154 N.E.2d 245; People v. Putnam (1947), 398 Ill. 421, 76 N.E.2d 183; People v. Wat......
  • People v. Bainter
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • April 30, 1987
    ...of the common law rule that a trial court retained power over a judgment during the term at which it was entered. People v. Lance (1962), 25 Ill.2d 455, 456, 185 N.E.2d 221; People ex rel. Lucey v. Turney (1916), 273 Ill. 546, 553, 113 N.E.2d 105; cf. People v. Heil (1978), 71 Ill.2d 458, 4......
  • Davis v. East St. Louis & Interurban Water Co.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • May 27, 1971
    ... ... injunction, which was substantially similar to their original complaint, but contained additional allegations that plaintiffs are poor people whose sole source of funds is public aid; that while they are able to pay their water bills as they fall due, they are unable to make the deposit of ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT