People v. Williams

Decision Date22 March 1963
Docket NumberNo. 36703,36703
Citation189 N.E.2d 314,27 Ill.2d 327
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Gerald WILLIAMS, Plaintiff in Error.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

John J. Crown and John C. Tucker, Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State's Atty., Chicago (Fred G. Leach and E. Michael O'Brien, Asst. Attys. Gen., and Edward J. Hladis and Matthew J. Moran, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), for defendant in error.

DAILY, Justice.

Defendant, Gerald Williams, was jointly indicted with Fairleigh Gray and James Williams for the armed robbery of a gasoline service station, and at a jury trial which followed in the criminal court of Cook County, defendant and Gray were jointly tried and convicted as charged, the former being sentenced to a prison term of from three to twelve years. Upon writ of error he alleges, among other things, that the trial court erred in failing to discharge him under the four-months statute. Ill.Rev.Stat.1959, chap. 38, par. 748.

The common-law record indicates that defendant was arrested on December 31, 1960, and was indicted on January 24, 1961. At the arraignment on January 31, 1961, Attorney George Uretz appeared as counsel for defendant and the cause was continued on the court's motion until March 13, 1961. Upon motion of the State's Attorney, the matter was subsequently continued to April 10, 1961, and by the court's motion it was further continued, first to April 11 and then to April 17, 1961. On the latter date the clerk's entry shows a continuance until April 19, 1961, 'by express consent and agreement between the State's Attorney, Counsel for the People, and the Defendant, Gerald Williams, and his counsel now here given and made in open court.' At the hearing on April 19, defendant demanded an immediate trial but the cause was again continued upon the court's motion until May 23, 1961, at which time Uretz withdrew as counsel for defendant and new counsel entered their appearance. The latter filed a petition for defendant's discharge alleging that neither defendant nor his attorney were present at the April 17 hearing, and therefore could not have agreed to a continuance as shown by the common-law record.

At a hearing held to consider the petition for discharge, a stenographic transcript of the April 17 proceeding, (duly certified by the presiding judge,) was introduced showing the appearance of counsel for James Williams and Fairleigh Gray but no appearance of either defendant or his counsel, George Uretz. The transcript further indicated that when the case was called on April 17, James Williams moved for a severance, whereupon his case was continued until April 19, and counsel for Gray requested a similar continuance. The judge then inquired about defendant, Gerald Williams, and was informed by Gray's counsel that the case against both Gray and Gerald Williams should be continued until April 19 by agreement.

Upon denial of the petition for discharge, defendant moved to vacate such order, and in support thereof called Gray's counsel to testify concerning the April 17 proceeding. The attorney, an assistant public defender, acknowledged that he had asked the court on that date to continue the matter as to both Gray and Gerald Williams but admitted that he did not represent Gerald Williams, or have any authority from him or his counsel to so act upon Gerald's behalf. Nevertheless, the judge refused to vacate his prior order and the matter was called for trial on June 26, 1961. Thereafter defendant moved to correct the common-law record insofar as it showed a continuance by his agreement on April 17, but upon hearing such relief was also denied.

Section 18 of division XIII of the Criminal Code (Ill.Rev.Stat.1959, chap. 38, par. 748) provides that any person accused of a criminal offense, who is neither admitted to bail nor tried within four months from the date of incarceration, shall be discharged upon petition unless the delay is occasioned by the prisoner, or unless an extension of not more than 60 days has been granted the State to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 cases
  • In re J.B., 1-17-3096
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 11, 2018
    ...support her contention that the absence of the sheriff's affidavits in the docking statement is significant. See People v. Williams , 27 Ill. 2d 327, 329, 189 N.E.2d 314 (1963) ("Although the common-law record imports verity and is presumed correct, where other facts appearing in the bill o......
  • People v. Montgomery
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • June 2, 1981
    ...v. Alabama (1969), 395 U.S. 238, 243, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 1712, 23 L.Ed.2d 274.) Considering the record as a whole (People v. Williams (1963), 27 Ill.2d 327, 329, 189 N.E.2d 314), we cannot find that defendant made a knowing and understanding waiver of his right to a jury trial. Save for the not......
  • People v. Tackett
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • January 31, 1985
    ...common law record. He relies upon People v. Thompson (1977), 51 Ill.App.3d 447, 9 Ill.Dec. 498, 366 N.E.2d 1009, and People v. Williams (1963), 27 Ill.2d 327, 189 N.E.2d 314. Defendant's argument implicitly characterizes the oral pronouncement of sentence and the judgment order setting out ......
  • People v. Canada
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • March 10, 1967
    ...a continuance, the four-month period ceases to run and the defendant is not on that account entitled to a discharge. People v. Williams, 27 Ill.2d 327, 329, 189 N.E.2d 314; People v. Rankins, 18 Ill.2d 260, 262, 163 N.E.2d 814; People v. Ephraim, 17 Ill.2d 527, 528, 162 N.E.2d 431; People v......
  • 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