People v. Molz
| Citation | 113 N.E.2d 314,415 Ill. 183 |
| Decision Date | 26 June 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 32625,32625 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. MOLZ. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
Eldon E. Hazlet, of Carlyle, for plaintiff in error.
Ivan A. Elliott, Atty. Gen., and Joseph B. Schlarman, State's Atty., of Carlyle, for the People.
The plaintiff in error, John W. Molz, hereinafter designated defendant, has sued out this writ of error to review the judgment of the circuit court of Clinton County sentencing him, on a plea of guilty to armed robbery, to a minimum term of ten years and a maximum term of twenty years. Error is assigned on the trial court's treatment of his application for probation.
On January 15, 1952, the defendant and his nephew and codefendant were arrested at their homes in Salem, by the sheriff of Clinton County, accompanied by the sheriff of Marion County, and were taken to the Clinton County jail. Subsequently both defendant and his codefendant signed confessions admitting the armed robbery of one Edward Hoffman, proprietor of a filling station at Beckemeyer, on the night of January 14, 1952. Defendant's confession, although not admitted in evidence, was recited in counsel's arguments and is set out in full in his brief and argument. This confession stated that when defendant returned from his work at United Contracting Company, Salem, about 4:30 or 5:00 P.M. June 14, his nephew and codefendant, Alva Wayne Letsinger, was at his home; that his nephew, whom he called Wayne, had not had steady work, told him he needed money and said, 'How about pulling a job tonight-I said no;' that Wayne suggested they meet at 'Joe's' tavern after supper; that after supper he and his wife went to the tavern, about 8:00 P.M. he drove his wife home, procured a 22-calibre pistol which he placed in the glove compartment of the car, and returned to the tavern and met Wayne. They had several drinks together and then drove to Beckemeyer, arriving there about 10:00 P.M.; that on the way there Wayne again said he needed money and suggested they hold up someone. Upon arriving in Beckemeyer, they parked at a tavern, sat in the car talking about what job to do and defendant stated he 'tried to talk him out of doing any.' Defendant then went into a tavern, had a couple of drinks, and when he returned to the car Wayne suggested they hold up the 'Phillips 66' station. Defendant took the pistol from the glove compartment, put it in his overall bib, and drove up to that station just as it was closing. They drove past the 'Shell' filling station, operated by Edward Hoffman, noted that he was alone, turned around and drove back there, parked the car between the building and the pumps. From this point we quote defendant's confession, as it appears in his brief and argument filed in this court:
The record discloses that Edward Hoffman, then 70 years of age, died of a heart attack at his home at 1:30 A.M. the following morning. No evidence was adduced, however, to attribute the death to the robbery.
On March 28, 1952, the Clinton County grand jury returned a true bill of indictment charging defendant and his codefendant with armed robbery. Upon arraignment on the same day they were furnished with copies of the indictment, lists of witnesses and jurors, and at 12:15 P.M., they advised the court they wished to plead guilty. The court refused to accept their pleas, appointed counsel for them and recessed to 1:30 P.M. At that time they appeared with their appointed counsel, and being questioned by the court, advised him they had conferred with their counsel and wanted to enter their pleas of guilty. The court thereupon advised them of their right to trial by jury and admonished them as to the consequences of their pleas; they persisted therein and the court accepted their pleas and adjudged them guilty of armed robbery as charged in the indictment. Defendants' counsel stated that they wished to make application for probation, and the court stated 'They have that right, and their cases will be referred to the probation officer for investigation and report.'
On April 18, 1952, the probation officer filed a report in the office of the circuit clerk of Clinton County. This report stated that the probation officer had letters from the sheriff of Marion County, defendant's employer, and a fellow worker, all attesting defendant's good conduct in Illinois; also letters from a former associate judge and defendant's family doctor from Reed Springs, Missouri, defendant's former home. The report further showed defendant had been married ten years, had a wife and three small children whom he had always supported. The report also stated that the officer had talked with citizens of Beckemeyer, including members of deceased's family, and that they opposed probation. Accompanying the report was a letter from a police judge with a petition for the allowance of probation signed by 84 citizens of Stone County, Missouri, attesting to the excellent reputation of defendant and his parents as upright, law-abiding citizens.
On April 22, 1952, the defendants appeared in court with their counsel and the State's Attorney, and the following hearing was had. The court stated he had received the reports of the probation officer and asked the State's Attorney if he had anything to say. The State's Attorney then stated that he opposed probation for either of the defendants, recited the details of the crime and argued against any leniency being extended to them. Counsel for defendants thereupon argued to the court what he deemed to be the extenuating circumstances of the offense, emphasizing the previous good record of the defendant, and asked for probation for both defendants. Upon the conclusion of counsel's statement, the court asked each defendant if he had anything to say and each replied in the negative. The court then asked them to stand up and stated: Then followed the pronouncement of sentence as to each defendant.
We have recited the circumstances of this offense, the probation officer's report, and the procedure in some detail because defendant's contention that 'The court, the State's Attorney and the probation officer have treated this petition with a lightness and carelessness bordering on complete contempt and disregard for the wishes of the legislature and the rights of the accused,' focuses our attention upon those details.
Defendant's specific contentions can be consolidated into four objections, (1) the order referring the application for probation to the probation officer did not comply with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Consuelo-Gonzalez
...... 16 For this reason we express no opinion regarding the decision of the Supreme Court of California in People v. Mason, 5 Cal.3d 759, 97 Cal.Rptr. 302, 488 P.2d 630 (1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1016, 92 S.Ct. 1289, 31 L.Ed.2d 478 (1972), which permitted ...154 (1966); People v. Taylor, 178 Cal.App.2d 472, 3 Cal.Rptr. 186 (1960); Delaney v. State, 190 So.2d 578 (Fla.1966); People v. Molz, 415 Ill. 183, 113 N.E.2d 314 (1953); People v. Thomas, 121 Ill.App.2d 422, 257 N.E.2d 480 (1970); Mottram v. State, 232 A.2d 809 (Me.1967); State v. ......
-
People v. Evrard
....... In The People v. Molz, 415 Ill. 183, 113 N.E.2d 314, it appeared that the defendant plead guilty, and was adjudged guilty of armed robbery. The defendant made application for probation, which application was referred to the probation officer for investigation and report. The probation officer filed a report, and a ......
-
People v. Meyer
...... People v. Lowe, 153 Ill.2d 195, 180 Ill.Dec. 90, 606 N.E.2d 1167 (1992); In re G.B., 88 Ill.2d 36, 58 Ill.Dec. 845, 430 N.E.2d 1096 (1981); People v. Molz, 415 Ill. 183, 113 N.E.2d 314 (1953). Probation simultaneously serves as a form of punishment and as a method for rehabilitating an offender. In re G.B., 88 Ill.2d at 44, 58 Ill.Dec. 845, 430 N.E.2d 1096. Protection of the public from the type of conduct that led to a defendant's conviction is ......
-
People v. Pearson
...... The exercise of that discretion will be reversed only when abused or purely arbitrary. The People v. Saiken, 49 Ill.2d 504, 514--515, 275 N.E.2d 381 (1971); The People v. Hamby, 6 Ill.2d 559, 563--567, 129 N.E.2d 746 (1955); The People v. Molz, 415 Ill. 183, 190, 113 N.E.2d 314 (1953). Here, the trial court had before it a copy of the probation report and defendant was afforded the opportunity for a full hearing. Neither the record nor defendant's briefs reveal any action by the trial court, in the denial of probation, which might be ......