People v. Shoffner
| Decision Date | 17 May 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 30509.,30509. |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. SHOFFNER. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Ford County; Frank Lindley, Judge.
Clarence Shoffner was convicted of burglary, and he brings error.
Judgment affirmed.
James O. Monroe, Jr., of Collinsville, Manuel M. Wiseman, of Alton, and John Raeburn Green of St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiff in error.
George F. Barrett, Atty. Gen., and Claude M. Swanson, State's Atty., of Paxton (Edward Wolfe, of Springfield, and Clarence E. Soward, of Elizabethtown, of counsel), for the people.
An indictment returned in the circuit court of Ford County on April 8, 1931, charged the plaintiff in error did, on January 19, 1931, break and enter a store building with the intent to steal, and did take and carry away certain items of personal property having an aggregate value of $10.50. Bail was fixed at $1500 but the record does not disclose whether bail was given or whether plaintiff in error remained in custody. It does appear that on July 18, 1931, he was before the court and acknowledged receipt of a copy of the indictment, list of witnesses and a list of the petit jurors. The judgment contains the following:
‘And now in open court the defendant waives arraignment, and states to the Court that he desires to plead guilty to the Crime of Burglary in manner and form as alleged in said indictment.
‘And now the defendant after being admonished by the Court as to the effect and consequence of the said plea of guilty, still persists in his said plea of guilty to the crime of Burglary in manner and form as alleged in said indictment, and the defendant states his age to be 25 years.
‘It is therefore the order and judgment of this court that the defendant upon his said plea of guilty stand convicted of the crime of Burglary in manner and form as alleged in said indictment and the court finds the age of the defendant to be 25 years.’
The judgment concludes with an order sentencing plaintiff in error to the penitentiary for a period of one year to life. In 1947 leave was granted plaintiff in error to prosecute a writ of error forma pauperis, and in December, 1947, an authenticated copy of the common-law record was filed in this court. Two errors are assigned for reversal: first, that there was no arraignment, and without such the judgment can not be sustained; second, that plaintiff in error did not have counsel to advise him, that he did not know of his right to counsel, that the court did not advise him of such right, and that he entered his plea without a full understanding of his rights.
The formalities of arraignment as required by the common law have been changed by section 1 of division XIII of the Criminal Code (Ill.Rev.Stat.1947, chap. 38, par. 729). Where it was formerly required that the indictment be read to the accused, the statute now provides that he be furnished with a copy of the same. It has been said that the furnishing of a copy of the indictment is a better means of informing the accused of the character of the charge than was the former requirement that it be read to him. People v. Terry, 366 Ill. 520, 9 N.E.2d 322;Kelly v. People, 132 Ill. 363, 24 N.E. 56. If the record shows that what was done amounted in substance to an arraignment, it is sufficient. Parkinson v. People, 135 Ill. 401, 25 N.E. 764,10 L.R.A. 91. However, if a case is to be tried before a judge or jury, there must be a plea, for in the absence of same no issue is raised. If the accused pleads guilty, the record must show such plea, for without it a judgment of conviction cannot be sustained. Hoskins v. People, 84 Ill. 87, 25 Am.Rep. 433;Yundt v. People, 65 Ill. 372;Johnson v. People, 22 Ill. 314.
It will be observed that the record shows plaintiff in error acknowledged to the court that he had received a copy of the indictment and thereafter entered a plea of guilty. Plaintiff in error contends the words ‘waives arraignment’ constitute a waiver of all the essentials of an arraignment, but the recital of the furnishing of a copy of the indictment shows this requirement was not waived nor was the requirement that the record show a plea was entered. These facts appearing of record it is not a case as plaintiff in error contends where the record shows arraignment was waived, but is a case presenting a question as to whether the facts shown are sufficient to amount to an arraignment. We hold that what was done amounted to an arraignment, notwithstanding the recital ‘arraignment waived.’ People v. Terry, 366 Ill. 520, 9 N.E.2d 322.
In discussing the essentials of an arraignment to meet the due-process clause of the fourteenth amendment, it was held in the Terry case that due process of law did not require the people to adopt any particular technical form of procedure, so long as it appears that the accused has had sufficient notice of the accusation and an adequate opportunity to defend himself. Garland v. State of Washington, 232 U.S. 642, 34 S.Ct. 456, 58 L.Ed. 772.
The second assignment of error raises the same...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Hill
...355 Ill. 451, 189 N.E. 368; People v. Bain, 358 Ill. 177, 193 N.E. 137; People v. O'Hara, 384 Ill. 511, 51 N.E.2d 700; People v. Shoffner, 400 Ill. 174, 79 N.E.2d 200. We believe that this proposition should be There can be no quarrel with the basic premise of Johnson v. People that an issu......
-
State v. Wester
...35 Ala.App. 376, 47 So.2d 248 (1950), rule reaffirmed by Strong v. State, 47 Ala.App. 238, 252 So.2d 659 (1971); People v. Shoffner, 400 Ill. 174, 79 N.E.2d 200 (1948), with rule being applied in People v. Snively, 11 Ill.App.2d 579, 138 N.E.2d 112 (1956); Lumsden v. State, 384 S.W.2d 143 (......
-
United States v. Robinson
...is void relief can be obtained by a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. People v. Loftus, 400 Ill. 432, 81 N.E.2d 495; People v. Shoffner, 400 Ill. 174, 79 N.E.2d 200; People v. Wilson, 399 Ill. 437, 78 N.E.2d 514. In dicta in these cases the court declared that a writ of habeas corpus wa......
-
Jones, In Interest of
...407 N.E.2d 691 ... 85 Ill.App.3d 1122, 41 Ill.Dec. 193 ... In the Interest of Dennis JONES, a minor ... PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, ... Dennis JONES, a minor, Respondent-Appellant ... No. 79-491 ... Appellate Court of Illinois, ... This is so because, on review, 'the reviewing court is restricted in its examination to the record.' (People v. Shoffner (1948), 400 Ill. 174, 177, 79 N.E.2d 200, 201). A reviewing court may not guess at the harm to an appellant * * * This is not its role. Rather the ... ...