People v. Wales, 41586

CourtSupreme Court of Illinois
Writing for the CourtUNDERWOOD; WARD
Citation46 Ill.2d 79,262 N.E.2d 926
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Lydell WALES, Appellant.
Docket NumberNo. 41586,41586
Decision Date22 September 1970

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.

UNDERWOOD, Chief Justice.

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 (Ill.Rev.Stat. 1967, ch. 38, par. 122--1 Et seq.), 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: 'We have held it to be error to dismiss a post-conviction petition on the pleadings, as occurred here, where there has been inadequate representation by counsel, though the Pro se petition itself fails to present a substantial constitutional claim. People v. Tyner, 40 Ill.2d 1, 238 N.E.2d 377; see, People v. Wilson, 40 Ill.2d 378, 382, 240 N.E.2d 583; see also...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • People v. Jones
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • August 30, 2011
    ...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, 1–11–3458.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • February 6, 2014
    ...to 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 ......
  • People v. Suarez, 100499.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • January 19, 2007
    ......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 ......
  • People v. Csaszar
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 4, 2013
    ...held that the Act itself, before the adoption of Rule 651, required reasonable [2 N.E.3d 439]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 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT