People v. Robinson
| Decision Date | 19 November 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 37749,37749 |
| Citation | 33 Ill.2d 391,211 N.E.2d 697 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Philip ROBINSON, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Bernard M. Baum, Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State's Atty., Chicago (Fred G. Leach, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Elmer C. Kissane and Stuart P. Shapiro, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), for defendant in error.
In a bench trial in the criminal court of Cook County, Philip Robinson, plaintiff in error, and Richard Mitchell were convicted of rape and robbery. The court sentenced each defendant to the penitentiary for a term of 5 to 25 years on each conviction, the sentences to run concurrently. Robinson prosecutes this writ of error to review his conviction.
According to the complaining witness the defendants attacked her at about 2:00 o'clock A.M. on February 19, 1962, forced her into an alley, and there raped and robbed her. The police officer who arrested Robinson at the scene testified that when he arrived he heard prosecutrix yell for help, saying that two men had just raped and robbed her. He said she had blood on her face and hands, her clothes were torn, and her underclothes were torn down. Robinson was arrested at the scene after a struggle with the officer, but Mitchell escaped and was not apprehended until about three months later. A statement which Robinson made admitting his part in the rape and robbery was in substantial agreement with the testimony of the complaining witness concerning the attack.
The defendant raises two points as grounds for reversal: (1) that he was deprived of due process of law because the legal representation he received was of such low caliber as to amount to no representation at all, and (2) that the court erred in admitting the alleged confession into evidence. We will discuss this latter contention first.
When the State offered as evidence a written statement made by the defendant on the morning following his arrest, defense counsel objected to its admission because it was not 'timely.' Upon inquiry by the court it was learned that counsel's objection was for the reason that he allegedly had not received a copy of the confession at the time of defendant's arraignment. The record is not entirely clear as to when the defendant was furnished with a copy of the statement. Apparently Robinson had been indicted and arraigned on these same charges prior to Mitchell's arrest and was later reindicted with Mitchell. At the arraignment after these reindictments the defendant's attorney stipulated that the statements furnished in connection with the two previous indictments of Robinson would stand in connection with the reindictments. The court properly overruled the defendant's objection.
When Robinson testified at the trial he alleged for the first time that the confession was involuntarily made. Thereupon the court withdrew its ruling which admitted the statement into evidence and heard testimony concerning the voluntary nature of the confession before making an express finding that the confession was voluntarily made. The record shows...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Gant
...might be argued however that certain language used by the court in a recent decision involving court appointed counsel (People v. Robinson, 33 Ill.2d 391, 211 N.E.2d 697) indicates a less stringent rule where counsel is not of the defendant's own choosing. In that case the court held that t......
-
People v. Gonzales, 36987
...prejudice resulting from incompetent representation must be shown in order for us to reverse the conviction.' (People v. Robinson, 33 Ill.2d 391, 211 N.E.2d 697.) We have scrutinized the record and conclude that, by virtue of his representation both by Segarra and by co-counsel, defendant's......
- People ex rel. Skidmore v. Anderson
-
People v. Mitchell
...for a term of 5 to 25 years on each conviction, the sentences to run concurrently. Robinson appealed separately (People v. Robinson, 33 Ill.2d 391, 211 N.E.2d 697) and we affirmed his conviction. Mitchell's case is before us on a writ of The defendant first contends that he was denied the r......