People v. Montgomery
| Decision Date | 24 March 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 42261,42261 |
| Citation | 45 Ill.2d 94,256 N.E.2d 802 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Walter MONTGOMERY, Appellant. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Frederick F. Cohn, Chicago, for appellant.
William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Edward V. Hanrahan, State's Atty., Chicago (James B. Zagel, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Elmer C. Kissane and James S. Veldman, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel) for the People.
Walter Montgomery was indicted for murder, two counts of rape, and assault with intent to commit rape. Counsel was appointed and defendant pleaded not guilty. Following a jury determination that he was competent to stand trial, defendant changed his pleas to guilty and was sentenced on February 28, 1958. He now appeals the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County, which dismissed his amended post-conviction petition first filed Pro se on July 25, 1968.
At the time of Montgomery's conviction, the limitation period for filing petitions under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act was five years, 'unless the petitioner alleges facts showing that the delay was not due to his culpable negligence.' (Ill.Rev.Stat.1957, ch. 38, par. 826.) The effect of that limitation has not been changed by the subsequent amendment (Ill.Rev.Stat.1965, ch. 38, par. 122--1,) which extends the time for filing to twenty years. (People v. Reed, 42 Ill.2d 169, 246 N.E.2d 238.) Montgomery's petition alleged that his delay in filing was due to mental illness, and in support of this contention the petition included the reports of various psychiatrists regarding defendant's mental condition during incarceration. The judge presiding over the post-conviction proceedings indicated that the mental condition revealed in the records did not in his opinion satisfactorily excuse Montgomery's delay in filing his petition; nevertheless, the judge gave consideration to the merits of the petition and apparently based the dismissal thereon. The threshhold issue before this court must in any event be whether Montgomery was barred from proceeding under the Act by virtue of his extended delay in filing, since no relief may be granted on the merits unless the petition is cognizable under the statute.
We have carefully examined the several psychiatric classification reports, and 'special progress' reports which Montgomery presents to excuse his long delay in filing under the Act. The reports generally indicate a condition of mental disturbance,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Wright
...no matter how meritorious the asserted constitutional deprivation may be. Support for this position can be found in People v. Montgomery, 45 Ill.2d 94, 256 N.E.2d 802 (1970). There, the defendant filed an untimely petition, claiming that the delay was due to his mental illness. The circuit ......
-
People v. Heirens
...32 Ill.App.3d 641, 336 N.E.2d 143 (dismissal of petition without an evidentiary hearing was proper); see also People v. Montgomery (1970), 45 Ill.2d 94, 256 N.E.2d 802 (petition was properly dismissed where it was filed long after the five-year limitation period even though psychiatric repo......
-
People v. Scullark
...on other grounds, People v. Rissley, No. 82536, slip op. at 11, 2001 WL 263090 (March 15, 2001); see, e.g., People v. Montgomery, 45 Ill.2d 94, 96, 256 N.E.2d 802, 803 (1970) (petitioner culpably negligent even where court found that his psychiatric reports "generally indicate a condition o......
-
People v. Rissley
...from the trial court to prepare his post-conviction petition. People v. Diefenbaugh, 40 Ill. 2d 73, 75 (1968). See also People v. Montgomery, 45 Ill. 2d 94, 96 (1970) (finding insufficient showing of lack of culpable negligence despite petitioner's submission of materials showing a general ......