People v. Shrum

• Decision Date: 20 November 1957
• Docket Number: No. 34344,34344
• Citation: 146 N.E.2d 12,12 Ill.2d 261
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Burel SHRUM, Plaintiff in Error.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Page 12

146 N.E.2d 12

12 Ill.2d 261

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Burel SHRUM, Plaintiff in Error.

No. 34344.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Nov. 20, 1957.

Burel Shrum, pro se.

Latham Castle, Atty. Gen. (Fred G. Leach, Decatur and Bruce E. Kaufman, Springfield, of counsel), for the People.

SCHAEFER, Justice.

In 1947 Burel Shrum pleaded guilty to an indictment that charged him with murder. Upon his plea he was adjudged guilty, and after a hearing in mitigation and aggravation he was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of 199 years.

On this writ of error to review the judgment of conviction he first contends that the sentence of 199 years is not authorized by law. The statute, however, has long been interpreted otherwise, (People v. Pace, 362 Ill. 224, 198 N.E. 319; People v. Rucker, 364 Ill. 371, 4 N.E.2d 492; People v. Touhy, 9 Ill.2d 462, 138 N.E.2d 513,) and the General Assembly has not acted to correct that interpretation.

The contention that the indictment is defective because it fails to state that the defendant's assault upon the woman he killed was made 'with intent' to murder is also untenable. The indictment charges that the defendant 'did, unlawfully, feloniously and wilfully, with malice aforethought, with a pistol then and there held in his hands, assault and shoot one Margaret Radford, * * * and gave her on mortal wound, of which * * * the said Margaret Radford, * * * on the eleventh day of January A.D. 1947, * * * died.' It effectively charges the crime of murder. People v. Moore, 368 Ill. 455, 14 N.E.2d 494; People v. Corder, 306 Ill. 264, 137 N.E. 845.

Defendant argues that the court erred in not appointing counsel for him and that there was no intelligent waiver of his right to counsel and to a trial by jury. The case is here upon the common-law record, and that record contradicts defendant's claim. It states that 'the court explained to the defendant his right to a trial by jury and to be represented by counsel, but the defendant indicates and says he does not want counsel appointed for him but is guilty of the crime of murder and is ready to enter his plea of guilty to said charge of murder.' The court then explained the penalty for murder and admonished defendant as to the consequences of his plea, but he persisted in his plea of guilty. So far as the record shows, defendant was capable of waiving his right to counsel and to a trial by jury, and understandingly did so. When he was convicted the present requirement (Ill.Rev.Stat.1955, chap. 110, par. 101.26) that a verbatim transcript of the proceedings on arraignment be preserved as a part of the commonlaw record was not in effect.

Defendant also complains that the record does not show that he was ever found guilty by the court or a jury, and that it fails to show that the court entered judgment before imposing sentence upon his plea of guilty. The record also refutes this contention. It states that 'the defendant persists in his plea of guilty, and the Court thereupon accepts the plea of guilty and passes judgment upon his plea of guilty, as charged in the indictment * * *. The Court holds hearing in mitigation and aggravation * * * Whereupon the Court sentences the said defendant, Burel Shrum, to serve a term of One Hundred Ninety-nine years in the Illinois State Penitentiary * * *.' In the context in which it is here used, the word 'p...