People v. Milani
| Decision Date | 23 May 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 38480,38480 |
| Citation | 216 N.E.2d 816,34 Ill.2d 524 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Joseph H. MILANI, Appellant. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Joseph H. Milani, pro se.
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield, for appellee.
Defendant, Joseph H. Milani, appeals from a judgment of the circuit court of Williamson County wherein he was convicted of the murder of Mary Roberts and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of 150 years. The claim that he was denied various constitutional rights and safeguards is the basis of our jurisdiction.
Upon arraignment it appeared that defendant was indigent and, with his consent, the public defender and another attorney were appointed to defend him. A plea of not guilty was entered and an ensuing jury trial progressed to a point where John Walter Devens testified for the prosecution that defendant had admitted the murder, and its details, in several conversations with the witness. Fllowing a recess, defendant moved to change his plea to one of guilty and when he persisted therein after due admonition, the trial court accepted the substituted plea and pronounced sentence, the defense declining to offer evidence in mitigation.
Defendant now contends he was deprived of due process of law: (1) Because his appointed counsel were incompetent, particularly due to their failure to raise certain defenses; (2) because he was either insane or drunk, or both, when the crime was committed making him incapable of malice or intent; (3) because his plea of guilty was coerced by his own counsel acting in collusion with the State's Attorney; (4) because prejured testimony, Viz., that of Devens, was used to obtain his conviction; (5) because Devens was a surprise witness, (a claim directly contradicted by the record,) and because the court would not recess the trial until impeaching testimony could be obtained; (6) because defendant was deprived of the right to be present at every stage of his trial, (another claim refuted by the record;) and (7) because inflammatory newspaper, radio and television reports prior to trial 'precluded anything but a guilty verdict.'
A plea of guilty, voluntarily and understandingly entered, obviates the need to introduce evidence against an accused and waives all defects and errors not jurisdictional. (People v. Scott, 29 Ill.2d 429, 194 N.E.2d 197; People v. Terry, 12 Ill.2d 56, 145 N.e.2d 36.) Thus, even if it were to be conceded that defendant's various claims have a basis in the record, it is quite obvious that he is in no position to make his present contentions, nor may we properly consider them, unless there is substance to his charge that his plea of guilty was coerced. (People v. Thompson, 19 Ill.2d 330, 167 N.E.2d 221; People v. Fisher, 21 Ill.2d 142, 171 N.E.2d 617; People v. Smith, 23 Ill.2d 512, 179 N.E.2d 20.) But other than unsupported statements in defendant's brief, there is nothing in the record which either establishes or suggests that the plea was involuntary or fraudulently obtained. Rather, it appears that defendant, in the presence of his own counsel and the State's Attorney, permitted the substituted plea to be presented without complaint or contradiction and persisted therein though admonished by the court. Further, the record affirmatively shows the purpose of the guilty plea was to 'throw' defendant on the mercy of the court in an effort to avoid the death penalty.
Relying upon decisions holding that the trial of an accused while insane is a violation of due process,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Heirens
...him. The motion was denied, the case was considered on the defendant's Pro se brief, and the judgment was affirmed. (People v. Milani, 34 Ill.2d 524, 216 N.E.2d 816.) The defendant filed a petition for Certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States, and on February 13, 1967, that cour......
-
People v. Ostrand
...There was no request for the production of this hat, and defendant may not claim error for the first time on appeal. People v. Milani, 34 Ill.2d 524, 527, 216 N.E.2d 816; People v. French, 33 Ill.2d 146, 149, 210 N.E.2d 540; People v. Harris, 33 Ill.2d 389, 390, 211 N.E.2d 693. Defendant qu......
-
People v. Milani
...following his guilty plea entered midway in a jury trial in the Williamson County circuit court. Our original affirmance (34 Ill.2d 524, 216 N.E.2d 816) of the Pro se appeal was reversed by the United States Supreme Court (Milani v. State of Illinois, 386 U.S. 12, 87 S.Ct. 874, 17 L.Ed.2d c......
-
People v. Fontaine
...however, is clothed with discretion to determine whether the circumstances of a particular case requires such a hearing. People v. Milani, 34 Ill.2d 524, 216 N.E.2d 816, Rev., 386 U.S. 12, 87 S.Ct. 874, 17 L.Ed.2d In People v. Harris, 47 Ill.2d 106, 265 N.E.2d 644, the defendant produced ev......