People v. Shadowens
Decision Date | 19 December 1969 |
Docket Number | No. 42016,42016 |
Citation | 44 Ill.2d 70,254 N.E.2d 484 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Larry SHADOWENS, Appellant. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
George E. Morgan, Marion, for appellant.
William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Kenneth B. Powless, State's Attorney, Marion (James B. Zagel, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel), for the People.
After a competency hearing, defendant, Larry Shadowens, pleaded guilty in the circuit court of Williamson County to a charge of burglary and was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of not less than two nor more than four years. On August 2, 1968, defendant filed a petition, later amended by a second petition, seeking relief under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act ( ) alleging violations of his constitutional rights. Defendant's amended petition was denied after a hearing and he appealed to this court. He contends that he was denied due process because he was allowed to waive a jury trial at a hearing to determine his competency and that it was error not to appoint two psychiatrists to examine him and to allow a report to be submitted at the hearing in lieu of the testimony of an expert.
Defendant argues that if one is incompetent, this alone would be reason enough to preclude him from waiving his right to a jury trial to determine his competency. Section 104--2(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (Ill.Rev.Stat.1967, ch. 38, par. 104--2(a),) provides: This section of the statute which gives the right to have the issue of competency determined by a jury, also gives the defendant the opportunity to waive this right. In People v. Brown (1969), 43 Ill.2d 79, 81, 250 N.E.2d 647, 649, where the sole question before this court was whether a defendant may waive his right to a jury trial in a competency hearing, we held that: Defendant was advised of his right to a jury by the court. There is nothing in the record to indicate that his waiver was not voluntarily and understandingly made, and therefore the waiver was effective.
Defendant next argues that it was error not to appoint two or more psychiatrists to examine him for competency. Section 104--2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Ill.Rev.Stat.1967, ch. 38, par. 104--2(d)) in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Manning
...no constitutional right to a jury at such proceedings (People v. Brown (1969), 43 Ill.2d 79, 81, 250 N.E.2d 647; People v. Shadowens (1969), 44 Ill.2d 70, 72, 254 N.E.2d 484). In determining whether the legislature intended to confer such a right, the primary source to be examined is the st......
-
People v. Welsh
... ... Polito, 21 Ill.App.3d 182, 315 N.E.2d 84 (1974) ... Due process does not require a jury's determination on the issue of a defendant's competency (People v. Reeves, 412 Ill. 555, 561--62, 107 N.E.2d 861 (1952)); neither is this a constitutional right (People v. Shadowens, 44 Ill.2d 70, ... 72, 254 N.E.2d 484 (1969); People v. Brown, 43 Ill.2d 79, 81, 250 N.E.2d 647 (1969); People v. White, 131 Ill.App.2d 652, 657, 264 N.E.2d 228 (1970).) A jury trial in a competency [30 Ill.App.3d 889] hearing is a matter of procedure within the control of the legislature. In ... ...
-
People ex rel. Sepanek v. Craine
...the right to trial by jury does not extend to a hearing to determine the competency of a defendant to stand trial. (People v. Shadowens, 44 Ill.2d 70, 254 N.E.2d 484; People v. Brown, 43 Ill.2d 79, 250 N.E.2d 647; People v. Shanklin, Ill.App., Fifth District, 1975, 324 N.E.2d 711.) Thus, pe......
-
People v. Manning, 76-394
...a jury at a fitness or restoration hearing; it is a question of procedure which is governed solely by statute. (People v. Shadowens, 44 Ill.2d 70, 72, 254 N.E.2d 484, 485 (1969); People v. Brown, 43 Ill.2d 79, 81, 250 N.E.2d 647, 649 (1969).) Fitness to stand trial is thus governed by the U......