People v. Moran
| Decision Date | 10 February 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 20427.,20427. |
| Citation | 174 N.E. 532,342 Ill. 478 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. MORAN. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Daniel P. Trude, Judge.
Joseph C. Moran, in 1918, was found guilty of robbery while armed with a dangerous weapon. In February, 1930, he filed a petition and motion, and later a supplemental petition, asking that judgment be vacated. The petition was denied, and defendant brings error.
Affirmed.Eugene McCaffrey and Jay J. McCarthy, both of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
Oscar E. Carlstrom, Atty. Gen., John A. Swanson, State's Atty., of Chicago, and Joel C. Fitch, of Albion (Granville Beardsley and Edward E. Wilson, both of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
This proceeding is under section 89 of the Practice Act (Smith-Hurd Rev. St. 1929, p. 2187), which provides: ‘The writ of error coram nobis is hereby abolished, and all errors in fact, committed in the proceedings of any court of record, and which, by the common law, could have been corrected by said writ, may be corrected by the court in which the error was committed, upon motion in writing, made at any time within five years after the rendition of final judgment in the case, upon reasonable notice.’
Plaintiff in error was indicted in the criminal court of Cook county in June, 1917, for robbery while armed with a dangerous weapon. He pleaded not guilty, a trial was had, and on July 31, 1918, the jury returned a verdict finding him guilty. On October 1 thereafter he was taken to the penitentiary, where he is now confined. About the 10th of February, 1930, he filed in the criminal court of Cook county a petition and motion under section 89 of the Practice Act, and about the 1st of March filed a supplemental petition which asked that the judgment entered in the case against him be vacated. The state's attorney filed a motion to strike the petition and supplemental petition from the files. Later a hearing was had, and the court denied the petition of plaintiff in error.
The petition and motion of plaintiff in error were based on the allegation that, when the verdict of guilty was returned, no sentence was pronounced on the verdict; that plaintiff in error was never in court after the verdict was returned, and no judgment or sentence was pronounced in his presence. The motion alleged that, when the verdict was returned, he dared and defied the court to sentence him, and that no sentence was pronounced, and that he was never in court afterwards, and so, if any sentence ever was pronounced, he was not present. We are of opinion plaintiff in error's remedy was not under section 89 of the Practice Act. His position is somewhat inconsistent, as it is asserted there was no judgment ever rendered on the verdict, and by the petition it is sought to set aside or vacate the judgment. Of course, the law is well settled that the record shall affirmatively show the defendant was present in court when sentence was imposed, if there is any corporal punishment administered. Harris v. People, 130 Ill. 457, 22 N. E. 826;Fielden v. People, 128 Ill. 595, 21 N. E. 584;Brooks v. People, 88 Ill. 327;Hopt v. Utah, 110 U. S. 574, 4 S. Ct. 202, 28 L. Ed. 262. The rendition of a judgment and pronouncing sentence of the law are judicial acts (Black on Judgments, § 106, p. 113), while the entry of a judgment by the clerk is a ministerial act. The motion under section 89 is an appropriate remedy in criminal cases to set aside a conviction...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Vara
...The imposition of a criminal sentence is the judicial act that comprises the judgment of the court. Id. (citing People v. Moran , 342 Ill. 478, 174 N.E. 532 (1930) ). A fine constitutes a pecuniary punishment imposed on a person guilty of committing an offense. People v. Graves , 235 Ill. 2......
-
People v. Tonelle
...part of the sentence and the imposition of a sentence is a judicial act. Id. (citing Allen, 71 Ill. 2d at 381 and People v. Moran, 342 Ill. 478, 480, 174 N.E. 532, 533 (1930)).¶ 82 While a fine is intended as punishment, a fee "seeks to recoup expenses incurred by the State—to 'compensat[e]......
-
People v. Rave
...and the court not only would take judicial notice of its own records but is presumed to know what its record shows. People v. Moran, 342 Ill. 478, at page 481, 174 N.E. 532. What fact, therefore, was unknown to the court from the record before it? The plaintiff in error has not pointed out ......
-
Schroers v. People
... ... In a long line of cases involving motions for writ of error coram nobis in felony cases, this court has assumed jurisdiction by direct proceeding and disposed of the cases on the merits. Some of such cases are: People v. Crooks, 326 Ill. 266, 157 N.E. 218;People v. Moran, 342 Ill. 478, 174 N.E. 532;People v. Bruno, 346 Ill. 449, 179 N.E. 129;People v. Ogbin, 368 Ill. 173, 13 N.E.2d 162;Johnston v. People, 383 Ill. 91, 48 N.E.2d 350;Sims v. People, 399 Ill. 159, 77 N.E.2d 173. This court has jurisdiction to dispose of this case on its merits and anything in the ... ...