People v. Sprague
| Decision Date | 19 June 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 25134.,25134. |
| Citation | 371 Ill. 627,21 N.E.2d 763 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. SPRAGUE. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Franklin County; C. H. Miller, Judge.
Wayne Sprague was convicted of murder and, 11 years after his conviction, he presented motion to have the case redocketed and to withdraw his former plea of guilty and to enter plea of not guilty. To review an order denying the motion, the defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
R. E. Smith, of Benton, for plaintiff in error.
John E. Cassidy, Atty. Gen., and A. B. Dennis, of Springfield (Rea F. Jones, State's Atty., of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
Wayne Sprague was indicted in the circuit court of Franklin county in the year 1927 for the crime of murder. He entered a plea of guilty, evidence was heard and the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of forty years. More than eleven years after his conviction the defendant presented a motion to have his case redocketed and to withdraw his plea of guilty and enter a plea of not guilty. The motion was supported by an affidavit. The motion was denied and this writ of error has been sued out to review the order.
The matters alleged in the affidavit in support of the motion are substantially as follows: That at the time of the entry of his plea of guilty the defendant was not represented by counsel and did not know the effect of his plea; that, previously, he had consulted an attorney and had made an effort to retain his services, but the attorney became ill; that he informed the court of such fact and stated that he desired an attorney; that the court advised him to be prepared for trial five days thereafter; that at the time set for trial the defendant informed the court he did not have an attorney; and that the court stated he could enter a plea of guilty as an accessory to murder; that he entered the plea but did not understand that it provided the same penalty as murder; that after the sentence the defendant orally requested the judge to permit him to withdraw his plea of guilty and that an attorney be appointed for him, which request was refused; that the defendant was not familiar with and had not been advised concerning court practice, the meaning of the indictment or the penalties for various crimes, including murder; that he did not assault the person charged to have been murdered and was not guilty of the crime; that since his confinement he has made ‘efforts to procure a trial or get relief from the unjust punishment he is receiving.’ There is no bill of exceptions. The original judgment order, contained in the record, recites: Though certain of the facts set out in the affidavit are in conflict with the judgment order the record must prevail as against an affidavit. People v. Ambolo, 343 Ill. 480, 175 N.E. 776;Gillespie v. People, 176 Ill. 238, 52 N.E. 250. Except for the correction of errors of fact, as provided by statute, within five years after final judgment, the court has no power to vacate a judgment of conviction after a defendant has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Meyers
...372 Ill. 549, 25 N.E.2d 6), and admits that the presumption can only be overcome by other matters appearing of record. People v. Sprague, 371 Ill. 627, 21 N.E.2d 763;People v. Blumberg, 314 Ill. 567, 145 N.E. 627;People v. Fulimon, 308 Ill. 235, 139 N.E. 396. Defendant points out, however, ......
-
People v. Touhy
...can have application only to a criminal case. Upon the authority of People v. Rave, 392 Ill. 435, 65 N.E.2d 23, and People v. Sprague, 371 Ill. 627, 21 N.E.2d 763, section 72 of the Civil Practice Act is an insuperable bar to Touhy's petition filed August 10, 1946. Legislative power in this......
-
Withers v. People
...13 Ill.2d 456, 150 N.E.2d 152; Burns v. People, 9 Ill.2d 477, 138 N.E.2d 525; People v. Rave, 392 Ill. 435, 65 N.E.2d 23; People v. Sprague, 371 Ill. 627, 21 N.E.2d 763. The petitions in this case were filed over eight years after final judgment. The petitions allege that immediately upon c......
-
People v. Rave
...by motion in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis is to be found in the Civil Practice Act. This court, in People v. Sprague, 371 Ill. 627, 21 N.E.2d 763, which was a murder case, held that while a motion is allowed under the statute for the correction of errors of fact it must be pres......