People v. Lantz
| Decision Date | 16 May 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. 27852.,27852. |
| Citation | 55 N.E.2d 78,387 Ill. 72 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. LANTZ. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Macon County; William S. Bodman, Judge.
Scott Lantz pleaded guilty to charge of uttering a forged check knowing it to be false, and, to review the judgment entered on such plea, he brings error.
Judgment affirmed.
Scott Lantz, pro se.
George F. Barrett, Atty. Gen., and Ivan J. Hutchens, State's Atty., of Decatur (Fred G. Leach and Roy B. Foster, both of Decatur, of counsel), for the People.
January 17, 1942, the defendant, Scott Lantz, was indicted in the circuit court of Macon county for the crime of forgery. The indictment consists of two counts. Of these, the first charges defendant with forging a check with the intent to defraud Otis Green, and the second uttering a forged check, knowing it to be false, again with the intent to prejudice Green. February 19, 1942, defendant withdrew his plea of not guilty to both counts and, notwithstanding admonition by the trial judge as to the effect of his action, pleaded guilty to the second count. He was sentenced to an indeterminate term of from one to fourteen years' imprisonment in the penitentiary, with the recommendation that the minimum and maximum limits be one year and fourteen years, respectively. Lantz prosecutes this writ of error.
Defendant, now incarcerated in the penitentiary at Joliet, appears pro se. No bill of exceptions has been filed. Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the indictment on two grounds, first, that its allegations are too broad, relating only to fraud and, secondly, that ‘Sam J. Myslici,’ the alleged drawer of the check, is nonexistent. Defendant's plea of guilty does not preclude him from challenging the sufficiency of the indictment to charge a criminal offense in the form prescribed by the common law or the statute. People v. Fore, 384 Ill. 455, 51 N.E.2d 548. The check in question was dated August 4, 1941, drawn on the Illinois National Bank of Springfield, for $7.95, payable to the order of Scott Lantz, and bore the signature ‘Sam J. Myslici’ and the blank indorsement of Lantz. The second count of the indictment, so far as pertinent, charges that defendant ‘feloniously and fraudulently did then and there utter, publish and pass to Otis Green as true and genuine, a certain false and forged bank check, then and there purporting to have been signed by one Sam J. Myslici, then and there well knowing the said bank check to be false and forged, with the intent thereby then and there to prejudice, damage and defraud the said Otis Green.’ The indictment satisfies the requirements of the statute. To constitute the offense of forgery, under section 105 of division I of the Criminal Code (Ill.Rev.Stat.1943, chap. 38, par. 277), there must be a false writing or alteration of an instrument, the instrument as written must be apparently capable of defrauding, and there must be an intent to defraud. The statute makes no distinction between making, altering or counterfeiting an instrument with intent to prejudice, and uttering, publishing and passing as true and genuine any such forged instrument with intent to damage or defraud, knowing the same to be false, altered, forged or counterfeited. Every person who is guilty either of making and forging or uttering and passing, or attempting to utter and pass, under the conditions named in the statute, is deemed guilty of forgery. People v. D'Andrea, 361 Ill. 526, 198 N.E. 698. To sustain his contention that there is no such person as ‘Sam J. Myslici,’ defendant directs attention to the alleged failure of the prosecution to either subpoena or produce Myslici upon the trial. The argument is advanced that he could not be produced because he is a fictitious person. By defendant's plea of guilty, he admitted all the facts charged in the indictment. People v. Denning, 372 Ill. 549, 25 N.E.2d 6. Apart from the fact that upon a plea of guilty no occasion presented itself for the production of Myslici as a witness, or otherwise, nothing appears from the face of the indictment or the common-law record to indicate his nonexistence. This contention was not made upon the trial, and, in the absence of a bill of exceptions, there is nothing for a court of review to consider in this regard.
Defendant urges he was incompetently represented by counsel appointed by the court to defend him. No basis for this alleged error...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Morris
...or where the question is so raised but the accused withdraws his motion and pleads guilty to the offense charged. People v. Lantz, 387 Ill. 72, 55 N.E.2d 78. The right is also waived where the defendant seeks and obtains a continuance to a period beyond the four-month period within which he......
-
Randolph v. State, 28987
...also be waived. For waiver of right to trial without delay, see People v. Sweeney, 1951, 409 Ill. 223, 99 N.E.2d 143; People v. Lantz, 1944, 387 Ill. 72, 55 N.E.2d 78; People v. Harris, 1922, 302 Ill. 590, 135 N.E. 75; State v. Test, 1922, 65 Mont. 134, 211 P. 217, 218; Levine v. United Sta......
-
People ex rel. Barrett v. Bardens
...390 Ill. 387, 61 N.E.2d 372;People v. Rawls, 390 Ill. 476, 62 N.E.2d 438;People v. Panczko, 390 Ill, 398, 61 N.E.2d 355;People v. Lantz, 387 Ill. 72, 55 N.E.2d 78. So far as the pleadings disclose, Kooser made no election in this regard but, instead, made a motion for probation which was gr......
-
People v. Rohde
...397 Ill. 397,74 N.E.2d 552;People v. Haupris, 396 Ill. 208, 71 N.E.2d 68;People v. Wooten, 392 Ill. 542, 64 N.E.2d 857;People v. Lantz, 387 Ill. 72, 55 N.E.2d 78. Apart from this, the contention is without merit. Although an indictment must allege the commission of an offense on a certain d......