People v. Wolek
Decision Date | 14 February 1936 |
Docket Number | No. 23188.,23188. |
Citation | 200 N.E. 178,362 Ill. 436 |
Parties | PEOPLE v. WOLEK. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Walter P. Steffen, Judge.
John Wolek was convicted of armed robbery, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
Thaddeus C. Toudor, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
Otto Kerner, Atty. Gen., Thomas J. Courtney, State's Atty. of Chicago, and A. B. Dennis, of Danville (Edward E. Wilson, John T. Gallagher, and Richard H. Devine, all of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
John Wolek prosecutes this writ of error to the criminal court of Cook county seeking reversal of that court's judgment finding him guilty of armed robbery and imposing a penalty of imprisonment for a term of from one year to life.
Plaintiff in error urges that the court erred in passing sentence upon him without giving him a reasonable time within which to prepare a written motion for a new trial, but inasmuch as he shows no prejudice from this action of the court and points out nothing which he might have done had he been given more time, the point needs no consideration.
Plaintiff in error also argues that the court erred in rendering sentence before finding him guilty. This point is also without merit, as the record shows a finding of guilty in manner and form as charged in the indictment. His other two contentions concern the weight of the evidence on which the court's finding of guilty was based.
Herman Stutz testified for the people that about midnight on August 16, 1934, he, with Bernice Salinger, drove up in front of the latter's home in an automobile, and that when the car stopped a man appeared on his side of the car with a gun and at the same moment another man appeared on the other side pointing a gun at Miss Salinger; that the occupants were commanded to hand over their valuables, which they did, the robbers taking $12 from him, and a ring, wrist watch, and purse from Miss Salinger. He further testified that they were forced out of the car, in which the robbers drove away. The witness testified that he reported the robbery to the police, and that about 4 o'clock the same morning he went to the police station in response to a call, where he saw and identified the plaintiff in error as one of the robbers. Miss Salinger's testimony was substantially the same as that of her companion, except that she did not go to the police station until 8 o'clock the next evening. She also identified plaintiff in error, stating that he was the one who...
To continue reading
Request your trial