People v. Ware
| Decision Date | 19 January 1968 |
| Docket Number | 40615,Nos. 40262,s. 40262 |
| Citation | 233 N.E.2d 421,39 Ill.2d 66 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Ellis WARE, Appellant. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Hart, Banbury, Lawrence & Gullstrand, Aurora (Thomas J. Banbury, Aurora, of counsel) appointed by the court, for appellant.
William R. Ketchum, State's Atty., of Kane County (W. Ben Morgan, Asst. State's Atty., of counsel) for appellee.
The principal question here is whether the conflict of interests which confronted the defendant's attorney was one which will invalidate the defendant's conviction.
The defendant and five other men were indicted in Kane County on charges of robbery and attempted murder. The court appointed one attorney to represent the defendant and Garry O'Farrell, a co-defendant. The attorney moved for a severance in behalf of the defendant on the ground that O'Farrell had given a statement which implicated the defendant in the crimes charged and its introduction into evidence would prejudice the defendant's right to a fair trial. The motion was allowed. Thereafter, O'Farrell pleaded guilty to the charges and, not yet having been sentenced, appeared as a witness for the People and gave testimony against the defendant at his trial. The testimony portrayed the defendant, who was considerably older than his co-defendants, not only as a participant in the crimes but as the instigator and leader. The defendant testified that he was not with the co-defendants at the time of the crimes and in no manner was a participant. The verdict of the jury was 'guilty' and the defendant was sentenced to a term of not less than 8 nor more than 12 years.
The defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction and from the judgment denying his petition for redress under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act. A constitutional question is posed by the defendant's claim of denial of proper assistance of counsel.
We deem that under the circumstances the defendant did not receive the proper assistance of counsel, to which of course he had a right.
Typically, when one attorney represents co-defendants the legal adequacy of counsel is questioned by the claim that the defenses offered by the defendants are in some form divergent and that such divergency of defenses embarrassed the defense of one or more of the accused. Here, however, one defendant pleaded not guilty and stood trial and his co-defendant, represented by the same attorney, pleaded guilty and testified that his co-defendant had participated in the crimes. The attorney of necessity had to assume a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Turner
...of interest. People v. Taylor, 165 Ill.App.3d 1016, 1021, 117 Ill.Dec. 556, 520 N.E.2d 907, 912 (1988); People v. Ware, 39 Ill.2d 66, 67-68, 233 N.E.2d 421, 421-22 (1968). When one defendant admits guilt while the other maintains innocence or when one defendant is allegedly more culpable th......
-
People v. Williams
...a positive basis for finding an actual conflict of interest such as has been recognized by our supreme court in People v. Ware (1968), 39 Ill.2d 66, 233 N.E.2d 421. There, a single attorney was appointed to represent two defendants. One defendant pleaded guilty and then testified as a State......
-
People v. Berland
...There was no inconsistency in their defenses. Both defendants denied knowing one another and presented alibi defenses. People v. Ware (1968), 39 Ill.2d 66, 233 N.E.2d 421, illustrates an instance of conflict, in contrast to facts here. A single attorney was appointed to represent two defend......
-
People v. Baxtrom
...52, 369 N.E.2d 549; People v. Spicer, 61 Ill.App.3d 748, 18 Ill.Dec. 705, 378 N.E.2d 169 (5th Dist. 1978); see also, People v. Ware, 39 Ill.2d 66, 233 N.E.2d 421; People v. Johnson, 46 Ill.2d 266, 265 N.E.2d 869; People v. Augustus, 36 Ill.App.3d 75, 343 N.E.2d 272; People v. Halluin, 36 Il......