People v. Williams
| Decision Date | 04 December 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 42783,42783 |
| Citation | 265 N.E.2d 107,47 Ill.2d 239 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Herbert WILLIAMS, Appellant. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Thomas P. Cernek, Chicago, for appellant.
William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Jack Hoogasian, State's Atty., Waukegan (James B. Zagel, Asst. Atty. Gen. and Alphonse Witt, Asst. State's Atty., of counsel) for the People.
On May 14, 1968, a jury in the circuit court of Lake County found the defendant, Herbert Williams, guilty of the sale of narcotics, and he was sentenced to imprisonment for not less than ten nor more than eleven years. His post-conviction petition was dismissed after a hearing, and he has appealed.
In this court he contends that his court-appointed trial counsel failed to transmit to him an offer made by the State's Attorney to accept a plea of guilty to a lesser offense; that his court-appointed trial counsel was incompetent, and that his court-appointed appellate counsel did not effectively represent him.
In People v. Whitfield, 40 Ill.2d 308, 239 N.E.2d 850, decided in June, 1968, we held that a defendant has a constitutional right to be advised by his counsel of an offer by the prosecution to accept a plea of guilty to a reduced charge, on the ground that 'if a defendant has the right to make a decision to plead not guilty, he also has the right to make the decision to plead guilty.' (40 Ill.2d 308, 311, 239 N.E.2d 850, 852.) But in order to prove a violation of this right, a defendant must prove that there was an offer to accept a plea, which was not transmitted to him. In this case the trial judge found that no offer had in fact been made, and after reviewing the evidence submitted at the post-conviction hearing, we see no reason to disturb that finding.
In support of his charge that the attorney who represented him at his trial was incompetent, the defendant testified that they had very few conversations, and that most of them were devoted to discussion of racial matters. He also testified that his own testimony was first discussed in court, after the State's case had been presented, and then for only five or ten minutes. But the defendant admitted that he had told his attorney everything that he could about his case, and his attorney testified that he conducted 'a great deal' of investigation germane to the defendant's defense.
That defense was entrapment, and the choice of that ground of defense and his attorney's tactics...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Bernier
...nor expect more from his lawyer than he could from a lawyer privately retained to defend him. In the very recent case of People v. Williams, Ill., 265 N.E.2d 107, the court said: 'A court appointment to represent an indigent defendant does not endow an attorney with the ability to perform m......
-
U.S. ex rel. Simmons v. Gramley
...However, the defendant has the burden of demonstrating with some proof that he wished an appeal to be filed. In People v. Williams, 47 Ill.2d 239, 265 N.E.2d 107 (1970), in the absence of any proof in the record of defendant's intent to file an appeal, the Illinois Supreme Court rejected a ......
-
People v. Fernandez
...such wishes to his attorney in the form of affidavits, records, or other evidence containing specific facts. (People v. Williams (1970), 47 Ill.2d 239, 241, 265 N.E.2d 107; People v. Jones (1976), 36 Ill.App.3d 315, 320-21, 343 N.E.2d 525.) The rationale for this rule is that once a defenda......
-
Ali v. Danaher
... ... v. Kirsner, 245 Ill. 431, 92 N.E. 285. Cf. Williams v. Gottschalk, 231 Ill. 175, 83 N.E. 141. In our opinion, Wilson v. McKenna, 52 Ill. 43, is distinguishable.' (103 Ill.App.2d 23, 31, 32, 243 ... Danaher, Ill., 263 N.E.2d 820; People ex rel. Flanagan v. McDonough, 24 Ill.2d 178, 180 N.E.2d 486; Huber v. Van Schaack-[47 Ill.2d 238] Mutual, Inc., 368 Ill. 142, 13 N.E.2d 179; ... ...