People v. Smithka
| Decision Date | 15 June 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 22332.,22332. |
| Citation | 191 N.E. 211,356 Ill. 624 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. SMITHKA. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Harry B. Miller, Judge.
Leo Smithka was convicted of the larceny of a motor vehicle and of having previously been convicted of larceny of personal goods and property of a value exceeding $15, and he brings error.
Reversed and remanded.
Benjamin C. Bachrach and Lester N. Grossman, both of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
Otto Kerner, Atty. Gen., Thomas J. Courtney, State's Atty., of Chicago, and J. J. Neiger, of Springfield (Edward E. Wilson, J. Albert Woll, and Henry E. Seyfarth, all of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
DE YOUNG, Justice.
An indictment, the first county of which charged the larceny on August 12, 1933, of a motor vehicle, and the second, the larceny on the same day of one automobile of the value of $150, was returned against Leo Smithka in the criminal court of Cook county. The indictment further charged that Smithka, on March 1, 1929, had been convicted of the larceny of personal goods and property of a value exceeding $15. Smithka entered a plea of not guilty, but, by leave of court, withdrew it and moved to quash the count which alleged his previous conviction of larceny. The motion was overruled and Smithka renewed his plea of not guilty. The jury found that he was guilty of the crime of larceny of a motor vehicle in manner and form as charged in the indictment; that he had been theretofore convicted of larceny of personal goods and property of a value exceeding $15; and that he was about twenty-two years of age. Motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were made and overruled and Smithka was sentenced to the penitentiary for the term of twenty years. He prosecutes this writ of error for a review of the record.
The plaintiff in error contends that the theft of a motor vehicle is not one of the crimes specifically enumerated in section 1 of the Habitual Criminal Act and, in consequence, that the trial court erred in overruling the motion to quash the count charging his former conviction; in receiving and permitting the verdict to be filed; in overruling the motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment; and in sentencing him to the penitentiary for the term of twenty years.
Section 167 of the Criminal Code (), defines larceny as the felonious stealing, taking, and carrying, leading, riding, or driving away the personal goods of another. By the amended act (Laws of 1921, p. 404, Smith-Hurd Rev. St. 1933, c. 38, § 389, p. 1056, Cahill's Rev. St. 1933, c. 38, par. 382, [356 Ill. 626]p. 1039), every person convicted of larceny, if the property stolen exceeds the value of $15, or if the property is stolen from the person of another, shall be imprisoned in the penitentiary not less than one, nor more than ten years, but if the property has not been stolen from the person of another and is of the value of $15 or less, the person convicted shall be confined in the county jail, or sentenced to labor in the workhouse of the county, city, or town, where the conviction is had, or on the streets or alleys of the city, or on the public roads in the county, or to such labor under the direction of the sheriff as the county board may provide, not exceeding one year, and fined not exceeding $100. Section 168a of the Criminal Code (), makes the larceny of a motor vehicle a felony, and fixes as the punishment therefor imprisonment in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than twenty years. Section 1 of the Habitual Criminal Act (Smith-Hurd Rev. St. 1933, c. 38, § 602, p. 1083, Cahill's Rev. St. 1933, c. 38, par. 631, p. 1070), provides that whenever any person having been convicted of any of the crimes of burglary, grand larceny, horse stealing, robbery, forgery, or counterfeiting, shall thereafter be convicted of any one of such crimes, committed after such first conviction, the ‘punishment shall be imprisonment in the penitentiary for the full term provided by law for such crime at the time of such last conviction therefor.’
The indictment charged and the verdict of the jury found that the prior conviction of the plaintiff in error was for the larceny of personal goods and property of a value exceeding $15. It is manifest that the earlier conviction was for grand larceny, a crime included within the provisions of the first section of the Habitual Criminal Act. While it is not essential that the subsequent conviction be for the same offense, it must be one of the crimes enumerated in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Young
...to the other counts is an acquittal as to all other counts. (People v. Bybee (1956), 9 Ill.2d 214, 137 N.E.2d 251; People v. Smithka (1934), 356 Ill. 624, 191 N.E. 211; People v. Weil (1910), 243 Ill. 208, 90 N.E. 731; see also People v. Gray.) Central to defendant's argument is his conclus......
-
People v. Stewart
...or jury could not be reached upon such a record. On the other hand, in People v. Parker, 356 Ill. 301, 190 N.E. 358, People v. Smithka, 356 Ill. 624, 191 N.E. 211, and People v. Lund, 382 Ill. 213, 46 N.E.2d 929, where the court had before it bills of exceptions showing the proceedings at t......
-
People v. Atkinson
...the holdings of this court in People v. Crane, 356 Ill. 276, 190 N.E. 355; People v. Parker, 356 Ill. 301, 190 N.E. 358;People v. Smithka, 356 Ill. 624, 191 N.E. 211; and People v. Sarosiek, 375 Ill. 631, 32 N.E.2d 311, the judgments entered were erroneous, but contend that plaintiff in err......
-
People v. Barg
...in the penitentiary for determinate terms of ten years instead of indeterminate terms of from one to ten years. People v. Smith-ka, 356 Ill. 624, 191 N.E. 211. A prior conviction is no ingredient of the principal offense charged but is merely matter of aggravation going solely to the punish......