People v. Landers
| Decision Date | 14 April 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 18448.,18448. |
| Citation | 329 Ill. 453,160 N.E. 836 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. LANDERS. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Fayette County; F. R. Dove, Judge.
Willie Landers was convicted of an escape from the Illinois state farm, and he brings error.
Affirmed.F. M. Guinn, of Vandalia, for plaintiff in error.
Oscar E. Carlstrom, Atty. Gen., Will P. Welker, State's Atty., of Vandalia, and Roy D. Johnson, of Springfield, for the People.
Plaintiff in error, Willie Landers, prosecutes this writ of error to review the judgment of the circuit court of Fayette county finding him guilty of a violation of section 5 of an act entitled ‘An act in relation to the Illinois state farm’ (Laws 1923, p. 481), and sentencing him to imprisonment in the penitentiary. The section provides:
‘Whoever being a prisoner at the Illinois state farm escaped therefrom is guilty of a felony and upon conviction shall be imprisoned in the penitentiary not less than one year nor more than ten years.’
By his assignment of errors he challenges the validity of this section of the act.
The first objection is that the subject-matter of section 5 is not expressed in the title of the act, as required by section 13 of article 4 of the Constitution. This provision of the Constitution has been uniformly construed liberally in favor of the validity of enactments. People v. Lloyd, 304 Ill. 23, 136 N. E. 505. If by any fair intendment the provisions in the body of the act have a necessary and proper connection with the title, it is not objectionable. When the title of the act is general, the act may include any provision which is germane to the general subject-matter of the act, and which may be considered in furtherance of the general subject by providing for the method and means of carrying out such subject. People v. Stacker, 322 Ill. 232, 153 N. E. 354;People v. Newcom, 318 Ill. 188, 149 N. E. 269. This court has held that those provisions of the Public Utilities Act providing that the commission may require a public utility to make changes in its property and providing for the exercise of the power of eminent domain whenever necessary in such cases are properly included in an act entitled ‘An act to provide for the regulation of public utilities.’ (Public Service Co. v. Recktenwald, 290 Ill. 314, 125 N. E. 271, 8 A. L. R. 466); that the provision of the Motor Vehicle Act making it a criminal offense to have possession of a motor vehicle from which the manufacturer's serial number has been removed is properly included in an act governing the registrationof motor vehicles and regulating the use of the same (People v. Fernow, 286 Ill. 627, 122 N. E. 155); that those provisions of the Counties Act establishing civil service in Cook county were properly included in an act entitled ‘An act to revise the law in relation to counties' (Morrison v. People, 196 Ill. 454, 63 N. E. 989); and that the including of the provision of the Criminal Code, authorizing the party losing money at gambling to bring an action to recover the money lost, as a section in an act entitled ‘An act to revise the law in relation to criminal jurisprudence,’ did not violate the provision of the Constitution under consideration (Larned v. Tiernan, 110 Ill. 173). A title may be so broad that it does not give a fair idea of the substance of the body of the bill (Milne v. People, 244 Ill. 125, 79 N. E. 631), or so restricted that it will not include a subject that might well have been included in a more general title (People v. Horan, 293 Ill. 314, 127 N. E. 673); but neither of these conditions applies to the case before us. Nothing could be more germane to an act having for its general purpose the management and control of a penal institution than a provision providing a penalty for a person who escapes from such institution.
It further contended that the words ‘Illinois state farm’ do not have a meaning which is generally understood, and that neither the members of the Legislature nor the public would recognize from the title that the act deals with a penal institution. This contention is without merit. In 1917, the Legislature provided by public act for the establishment of an institution to be known as the ‘Illinois state farm,’ which was to be used for the correction of male offenders above the age of 16 years whose offense was punishable by confinement in the county jail. In 1919 an appropriation of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Sharpe
...only where the penalty is manifestly in excess of the very broad and general constitutional limitation invoked." People v. Landers, 329 Ill. 453, 457, 160 N.E. 836 (1927). Thus, this court determined that it would not strike down a penalty determined by the legislature, even if this court v......
-
People v. Hill
...179, 186, 5 Ill.Dec. 582, 361 N.E.2d 1110 (1977); People v. Gonzales, 25 Ill.2d 235, 240, 184 N.E.2d 833 (1962); People v. Landers, 329 Ill. 453, 457, 160 N.E. 836 (1927). We have previously held that the legislature acts within its power when it imposes mandatory sentences. For example, in......
-
People v. Withers
...83 Ill.2d 537, 542, 48 Ill.Dec. 228, 416 N.E.2d 259; People v. Gonzales (1962), 25 Ill.2d 235, 240, 184 N.E.2d 833; People v. Landers (1927), 329 Ill. 453, 457, 160 N.E. 836.) We find no such excesses in the Defendant also contends that the act is unconstitutional because it gives the prose......
-
People v. Godfrey
...N.E.2d 954, 956 (1987), quoting People ex rel. Ward v. Salter, 28 Ill.2d 612, 615, 192 N.E.2d 882 (1963). Accord People v. Landers, 329 Ill. 453, 457, 160 N.E. 836 (1927). We can substitute our judgment for a trial court's when the trial court abuses its discretion in sentencing. 134 Ill 2d......