People v. Stepheny
| Decision Date | 23 January 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 44597,44597 |
| Citation | 56 Ill.2d 237,306 N.E.2d 872 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Leon STEPHENY, Appellant. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
John E. Corkery, Chicago, for appellant.
William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Springfield , for the People.
Defendant, Leon Stepheny, was indicted for murder but was found guilty of voluntary manslaughter after a bench trial in the circuit court of Cook County in 1965. He was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of 10 to 20 years. On direct appeal, the appellate court affirmed (People v. Stepheny, 76 Ill.App.2d 131, 221 N.E.2d 798), and we denied leave to appeal (35 Ill.2d 631). Thereafter, defendant sought post-conviction relief (Ill.Rev.Stat.1967, ch. 38, par. 122--1 et seq.) but his petition was dismissed without an evidentiary hearing. We reversed and remanded this cause (No. 41349, not reported) on the basis of People v. Slaughter, 39 Ill.2d 278, 235 N.E.2d 566. We appointed new counsel, who thereafter filed an amended post-conviction petition. This petition was also dismissed without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal from this second dismissal order we reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the sole issue of competency of appointed trial counsel. (People v. Stepheny, 46 Ill.2d 153, 263 N.E.2d 83.) A hearing on this matter was conducted and resulted in the denial of his petition. This appeal follows.
We need only consider his contention that his trial was a sham and a mere formality, because the result had been agreed to in chambers and his appointed counsel in effect entered a plea of guilty for him without the necessary explanation of rights and waivers.
At the evidentiary hearing, defendant denied knowledge of a conference among the trial judge, the assistant State's Attorney, and his counsel, or of any agreement which they might have reached as a result thereof. He further maintained that he did not agree to plead guilty, and in fact was not guilty because he had acted in self-defense. He testified that he was surprised and unhappy when the court announced its decision. The record reflects that after judgment was entered he requested a transcript of the proceedings and as he left the courtroom he claimed that he told his attorney that he wanted to appeal.
Defense counsel testified as to his repeated unsuccessful efforts to negotiate with the prosecution for a plea of guilty to a lesser charge. After the State had presented a number of witnesses, a conference was held at which the trial judge, the assistant State's Attorney, and defense counsel were present. Counsel's testimony is unclear as to whether defendant was in fact present at the conference at which the assistant State's Attorney suggested that defendant be adjudged guilty of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced to 10 to 20 years imprisonment. Counsel testified that defendant was informed of these negotiations, and appeared pleased with the result. Counsel stated:
'Well, the State tried to make--Well, the State put on some...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Harris
...487 (2008) ; Thornton v. Illinois Founders Insurance Co., 84 Ill.2d 365, 49 Ill.Dec. 724, 418 N.E.2d 744 (1981) ; People v. Stepheny, 56 Ill.2d 237, 306 N.E.2d 872 (1974) ; People v. Manuel, 242 Ill.App.3d 20, 182 Ill.Dec. 461, 609 N.E.2d 995 (1993) ; People v. Sullivan, 72 Ill.App.3d 533, ......
-
People v. Pugh
...should have received admonishments by the trial court. (See People v. Smith (1974), 59 Ill.2d 236, 319 N.E.2d 760; People v. Stepheny (1974), 56 Ill.2d 237, 306 N.E.2d 872.) Defendant improperly argues in a footnote that he was not apprised of his right to testify at phase two. Since we hav......
-
Sutton v. State
...States, 391 A.2d 772, 773-76 (D.C.1978); People v. Smith, 59 Ill.2d 236, 242, 319 N.E.2d 760, 764 (1974); People v. Stepheny, 56 Ill.2d 237, 238-40, 306 N.E.2d 872, 873-74 (1974); People v. Russ, 31 Ill.App.3d 385, 388-93, 334 N.E.2d 108, 109-15 (1975).Some Federal courts have stated that a......
-
People v. Horton
...Ill.App.3d at 538, 29 Ill.Dec. 82, 391 N.E.2d 241.) The court also noted that the only case cited by Smith was People v. Stepheny (1974), 56 Ill.2d 237, 238-40, 306 N.E.2d 872, a case where defendant's trial was a sham; the attorneys and the judge agreed to the result and to putting on evid......