People v. Slicker
| Decision Date | 27 March 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 41396,41396 |
| Citation | 247 N.E.2d 407,42 Ill.2d 307 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Theodore SLICKER, Appellant. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Arthur G. Leisten and Richard A. Michael, Chicago, appointed by the court, for appellant.
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and John J. Stamos, State's Atty., Chicago (Fred G. Leach, Asst. Atty. Gen, and Elmer C. Kissane, Asst. State's Atty., of counsel), for appellee.
The defendant, Theodore Slicker, appeals from a judgment of the circuit court of Cook County which granted the State's motion to dismiss his post-conviction petition. As described in his brief, the defendant's petition 'alleged that both he and his codefendant William Schmidt pleaded guilty to the same charge and Schmidt was sentenced from two to six years while petitioner was sentenced for from four to eight; that a different standard was used to determine the two sentences; that in the armed robbery Schmidt displayed a revolver while petitioner did not display one; that Schmidt's prior felony record exceeded that of petitioner; and that neither the transcript, the probation report, nor any of the circumstances surrounding the robbery justified a more severe sentence for petitioner than for Schmidt.'
The defendant apparently argues that his right to an evidentiary post-conviction hearing depends solely upon whether his allegations, if true, raise a substantial constitutional question. This argument, however, misconceives this court's prior decisions and ignores the ground upon which his petition was dismissed. Upon a motion to dismiss a post-conviction petition, the trial court may properly render its decision on the basis of 'what is contained in the pleading to which the motion is directed, read * * * in conjunction with the transcript of proceedings at the trial.' People v. Hamby, 39 Ill.2d 290, 294, 235 N.E.2d 572, 576.
At the hearing on the motion to dismiss the post-conviction petition, the trial judge reviewed the evidence concerning the previous convictions of the two defendants which was before him when the sentences were imposed. That evidence showed that the defendant Slicker had previously been sentenced, on his plea of guilty, to one to ten years on each of three counts of armed robbery, and that on subsequent pleas of guilty he had been sentenced to two terms of from four to ten years each for burglary and participating in a confidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Andreano
...great and the defendant cannot complain of the disparity of sentence (People v. Morris, 43 Ill.2d 124, 251 N.E.2d 202; People v. Slicker, 42 Ill.2d 307, 247 N.E.2d 407; People v. Gnatz, 8 Ill.App.3d 396, 290 N.E.2d For the foregoing reasons we cannot say that the trial court committed an ab......
-
People v. Morris
...in the pleading to which the motion is directed, considered with the transcript of the trial or other proceedings. (People v. Slicker, 42 Ill.2d 307, 247 N.E.2d 407.) The transcript of the proceedings leading to the sentencing of the appellant does not support, as will be shown, his content......
- People v. Harden
-
People v. Gaines, s. 57843
...the petition to which the motion is directed, read in conjunction with the transcript of proceedings at the trial. People v. Slicker (1969), 42 Ill.2d 307, 247 N.E.2d 407; People v. Hamby (1968), 39 Ill.2d 290, 235 N.E.2d 572. The court acted well within the bounds of its authority. Althoug......