People v. Quidd
| Decision Date | 22 March 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 31841,31841 |
| Citation | 98 N.E.2d 752,409 Ill. 137 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. QUIDD. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Paul, Quidd, pro se, and M. J. St. George, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
Ivan A. Elliott, Atty. Gen., and John S. Boyle, State's Atty. of Chicago (Charles W. Corcoran, John T. Gallagher, Rudolph L. Janega, Clement D. Cody and William J. McGah, Jr., all of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
In May, 1948, plaintiff in error, Paul Quidd, was tried before a jury in the criminal court of Cook County and found guilty of larceny by embezzlement. As a result he was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of not less than three nor more than six years. Upon review by writ of error, this court affirmed the judgment of conviction. People v. Quidd, 403 Ill. 15, 85 N.E.2d 179. Subsequently plaintiff in error filed a petition in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis, in which he claimed that certain errors of fact existed during the trial which if known to the court, would not have resulted in the judgment against him. We are now asked by this writ of error to review the court's order which dismissed the petition. Counsel for the People question plaintiff in error's right to review because of his failure to file a notice of appeal, however, such argument overlooks the adjudication in Schroers v. People, 399 Ill. 428, 78 N.E.2d 219, that a motion of this nature, filed in a criminal action, continues its identity as a criminal case, and, if involving a crime above the grade of a misdemeanor, will be reviewed directly by this court on writ of error.
The petition here alleges that on the evening of the day the panel of twelve jurors was selected and sworn to try the charges against him, plaintiff in error was accosted in front of his home by 'three tall men' who threatened him with revolvers and stated: 'If you ever take the witness stand in that case you will never live to get down to the Stateville Penitentiary.' The allegations continue that plaintiff in error feared for his life and for that reason did not disclose the threat to the court or his counsel; that because of the threat he did not take the stand to defend or explain his actions though urged to do so by his counsel; that had he taken the stand to deny his guilt and explain the facts brought out by the prosecution, he believes he would have been found not guilty.
In support of the petition there was filed the affidavit of one Alfred Wiegandt, a neighbor to plaintiff in error, who deposed that he had seen the accost by the three armed men, and had been told of their threat by plaintiff in error. Affiant further stated that plaintiff in error expressed his fear of either notifying the police or of taking the witness stand in his own behalf.
Before a hearing was held upon the allegations of the foregoing petition, plaintiff in error was granted leave to file an additional petition in which he gave the names of other persons who had access to the vault from which the funds he is accused of embezzling disappeared, and alleged that the receipt signed for the missing money was not in his handwriting. Other facts alleged related to the circumstances under which the money had been placed in his custody, the parties present at the time, and to the occasion on which plaintiff in error opened and inventoried the contents of the envelope containing the money at the request of the owner's husband. Counsel for the People filed their motion to dismiss, which was granted by the court after hearing the arguments of both parties.
The frequently stated purpose of the petition or motion in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis, provided for by section 72 of the Civil Practice Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1949, chap. 110, par. 196), is to bring...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Glenn v. People
...and that the orders entered therein are directly reviewable. We are in accord with appellant's contention in this respect. People v. Quidd, 409 Ill. 137, 98 N.E.2d 752; Schroers v. People, 399 Ill. 428, 78 N.E.2d 219. However, we must observe that the proceedings under the petition or motio......
-
Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Pajor
...description of this kind of petition. ¶ 16 Airoom-type petitions derive from petitions for writs of coram nobis. See People v. Quidd, 409 Ill. 137, 140, 98 N.E.2d 752 (1951); Lammert, 46 Ill.App.3d at 673–74, 4 Ill.Dec. 922, 360 N.E.2d 1355. By contrast, Collins-type petitions derive from b......
-
People v. Lewis, 36099
... ... The trial ... court allowed the State's motion to strike and dismissed the petition. Petitioner appeals directly to this court, on the ground that this is considered a criminal case above the grade of misdemeanor. People v. Quidd, 409 Ill. 137, 98 N.E.2d 752 ... Petitioner contends that the constitutional guarantee of due process requires that there be an available remedy for securing relief from a conviction based upon perjured testimony, and that section 72 of the Civil Practice Act, as amended in 1955, ... ...
-
Merkie v. People
...of crimes above the grade of misdemeanor, direct review is proper. Glenn v. People, 9 Ill.2d 335, 137 N.E.2d 336; People v. Quidd, 409 Ill. 137, 98 N.E.2d 752. The record before us consists of the petition, the State's motion to dismiss, the complete transcripts of the proceedings in the or......