People v. Wales
| Decision Date | 22 September 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 41586,41586 |
| Citation | 46 Ill.2d 79,262 N.E.2d 926 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Lydell WALES, Appellant. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Donald M. Thompson, Chicago, for appellant.
William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Edward V. Hanrahan, State's Atty., Chicago (James B. Zagel, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Elmer C. Kissane and Joseph Romano, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), for the People.
Defendant Lydell Wales (a/k/a Walls) was convicted of rape in 1962, and sentenced to a term of 15 to 25 years; his conviction was affirmed on appeal. (33 Ill.2d 394, 211 N.E.2d 699.) In 1968, defendant filed a Pro se petition in Forma pauperis under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (), and the public defender was appointed to represent defendant in the post-conviction proceedings. Following a hearing in the circuit court of Cook County, that petition was dismissed on the State's motion. Defendant now appeals the denial of his motion to vacate the dismissal.
That motion alleged that the public defender did not adequately represent defendant in the post-conviction proceedings. His motion to vacate states that, in March of 1968, the public defender informed him by letter of the appointment; that defendant subsequently wrote three letters to the public defender inquiring about the status of the case; and that the only reply was a letter in June notifying him that the petition had been dismissed. The record reveals that defendant's Pro se petition was never amended, and the State does not deny that the public defender neither inquired of defendant nor consulted with him in person or by mail regarding possible grounds for relief prior to the hearing on the petition.
In People v. Slaughter, 39 Ill.2d 278, 235 N.E.2d 566, decided prior to the dismissal of defendant's Pro se petition, we made it clear that adequate representation by appointed counsel under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act requires that counsel consult with the defendant regarding the basis of his contentions, and amend the petition as necessary to shape it into appropriate form. Yet the State contends that, where a Pro se petition fails to state sufficient grounds for relief, it should be deemed adequate representation for appointed counsel to simply appear at the hearing and repeat the insufficient arguments. The State apparently still misapprehends the basis of our decision in People v. Slaughter, although it has been reiterated on numerous occasions. We recently answered the State's present contention in People v. Jones, 43 Ill.2d 160, 162, 251 N.E.2d 218, 220: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Jones
...failed to fulfill the duties of consultation, examining the record, and amendment of the pro se petition * * *.”); People v. Wales, 46 Ill.2d 79, 80, 262 N.E.2d 926 (1970) (dismissal of postconviction petition reversed where “defendant's pro se petition was never amended”). Cf. People v. Wr......
-
People v. Anguiano
...a reasonable level of assistance for counseled defendants could not be found in the pre-Rule 651(c) cases, including People v. Wales, 46 Ill.2d 79, 262 N.E.2d 926 (1970), People v. Ford, 40 Ill.2d 440, 240 N.E.2d 620 (1968), People v. Barnes, 40 Ill.2d 383, 240 N.E.2d 586 (1968), People v. ......
-
People v. Suarez
...and amendment of the pro se petition, regardless of whether the claims raised in the petition had merit. See, e.g., People v. Wales, 46 Ill.2d 79, 262 N.E.2d 926 (1970); People v. Barnes, 40 Ill.2d 383, 240 N.E.2d 586 (1968); People v. Ford, 40 Ill.2d 440, 240 N.E.2d 620 (1968); People v. W......
-
People v. Csaszar
...the court held that the Act itself, before the adoption of Rule 651, required reasonable assistance of counsel. See People v. Wales, 46 Ill.2d 79, 262 N.E.2d 926 (1970); People v. Ford, 40 Ill.2d 440, 240 N.E.2d 620 (1968); People v. Barnes, 40 Ill.2d 383, 240 N.E.2d 586 (1968); People v. W......