People v. Ventura
| Decision Date | 24 September 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 32791,32791 |
| Citation | 415 Ill. 587,114 N.E.2d 710 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. VENTURA. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Richard H. Devine, Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
Latham Castle, Atty. Gen., and Frank H. Masters, Jr., State's Atty., Joliet (Fred G. Leach, Decatur, and Harry L. Pate, Tuscola, of counsel), for the People.
A writ of error brings before us for review a judgment of conviction entered by the circuit court of Will County upon a plea of guilty entered by plaintiff in error, Francis Ventura, hereinafter referred to as defendant, to the charge of forcible rape.
We find no necessity to repeat the facts as they have been substantially covered in our opinion rendered in People v. Hancasky, 410 Ill. 148, 101 N.E.2d 575. This defendant, one of four jointly indicted for the crime of forcible rape, now urges that his conviction be set aside for the reason that the trial court failed to set aside his plea of guilty when it allegedly became apparent at the hearing that defendant had a legal defense; that the trial court failed to properly inform defendant that his punishment would be a fixed and definite sentence and that the trial court allowed incompetent counsel to represent the defendant, who was then a minor under 18 years of age. In answer the State claims that it was not apparent that defendant had a legal defense to the crime charged; that defendant was properly informed of his punishment by the court, and that the record fails to show that the defendant was represented by incompetent counsel.
We have carefully examined the record, including the transcript of the proceedings wherein the court heard testimony in aggravation and mitigation of the offense. It conclusively appears from the proceedings below that the crime of rape had been committed and that all four of the young men indicted, including the defendant, jointly participated therein. It was not denied that only two of these men had relations with the complaining witness. The codefendant Hancasky was definitely identified by her but she believed the second man was the codefendant Sinchak. However, she was not sure as to the identity of Sinchak and testified that she could have been mistaken in light of the fact that prior to the occurrence she had known neither of the defendants. Hancasky testified that Ventura was the other man. The defendant admitted that on the day following the occurrence he had remarked to Koutras, a codefendant, that 'Hancasky and I had intercourse,' but stated that he was merely joking when making such statement. A fair appraisal of all of the testimony in respect to the occurrence does not yield a reasonable doubt as to defendant's participation. We cannot therefore agree with the assertion that it became apparent that defendant had a legal defense to the indictment.
An examination of the proceedings in the trial court further reveals that the learned trial judge went to great lengths to admonish the defendant of all of his rights and further advised him of the nature of the crime with which he was charged and the consequences of his plea of guilty. It is difficult to understand how a trial court could have been more cautious in advising, informing and admonishing the defendant than was done in the instant case. Even the statute was read to the defendant by the trial court. The fact that the trial judge did not specifically thereafter tell defendant that he would receive a definite term of years as his sentence before accepting his plea of guilty could surely have had no prejudicial effect upon defendant. D...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams, In Interest of
.... Page 281. 321 N.E.2d 281. 24 Ill.App.3d 593. In the Interest of Issac WILLIAMS, Jr., minor Respondent. PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee,. v. Issac WILLIAMS, Jr., Appellant. No. 58766. Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Second Division. Nov. ... (Sutton v. People, 145 Ill. 279, 34 N.E. 420; People v. Musial, 349 Ill. 516, 182 N.E. 608; People v. Ventura, 415 Ill. 587, 114 N.E.2d 710; People v. Kutella, 132 Ill.App.2d 248, 269 N.E.2d 111.) And with regard to the marital relation of the parties ......
-
People v. Kutella
...... When forceable rape is charged, defendant has the burden of proving that he is under age and the State does not have to allege or prove that fact. The People v. Schultz, 260 Ill. 35, 39--40, 102 N.E. 1045 (1913); The People v. Musial, 349 Ill. 516, 517, 182 N.E. 608 (1932); The People v. Ventura, 415 Ill. 587, 590, 114 N.E.2d 710 (1953); People v. Wilson, 264 N.E.2d 492, 495--496 (Ill.App.1970). The same reasoning should apply to the forceable deviate sexual assault, in our opinion. Under the circumstances of this case, the refusal of the trial court to permit . Page 113. ......
-
People v. Clark
...... We have held that poor representation by an attorney of defendant's own choosing is of no legal moment, People v. Ventura, 415 Ill. 587, 114 N.E.2d 710, and that a judgment of conviction will not be reversed merely because such counsel failed to exercise the greatest of skill or for the reason that it might appear, in looking back over the trial, that he had made some tactical blunder. Putnam v. People, 408 Ill. 582, ......
-
People v. Kaminski
...... The court was, of course, not obligated to follow the State's recommendation as there was here no possibility that any bargain existed between the State and defendant respecting a lesser sentence in return for a plea of guilty (see People v. Ventura (1953), 415 Ill. 587, 590, 114 N.E.2d 710; People v. Baldridge (1960), 19 Ill.2d 616, 622, 169 N.E.2d 353). The sentence imposed for the burglary was within the limits prescribed by law and, except for the failure to credit defendant with time successfully served on probation, was proper. The ......