People v. Wyatt
| Decision Date | 23 January 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 36668,36668 |
| Citation | 180 N.E.2d 478,24 Ill.2d 151 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Eddie Lee WYATT, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender, Chicago (James J. Doherty and William J. Moran, Asst. Public Defenders, Chicago, of counsel), for aplaintiff in error. of counsel), for plaintiff in error. P. Ward, State's Atty., Chicago (Fred G. Leach, Asst. Atty. Gen., and John T. Gallagher and Dean H. Bilton, Asst. State's Attys., Chicago, of counsel), for defendant in error.
This writ of error is prosecuted by defendant, Eddie Lee Wyatt, to review a judgment of the criminal court of Cook County, following a bench trial, whereby he was found guilty of robbery and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of one to eight years. He assigns as error, first, the denial of a timely motion for discharge on the ground that he was not tried within four months of commitment as requfired by law (Ill.Rev.Stat.1959, chap. 38, par. 748), and, second, that he was not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Defendant was arrested on June 3, 1959, and remained incarcerated without being admitted to bail until brought to trial on October 29, 1959, well beyond the required four-month period. Clearly therefore defendant was entitled to discharge, unless he caused the delay of trial. The People assert, however, that defendant did occasion a delay in trial from June 22, 1959, to July 1, 1959, which tolled the running of the four-month statutory period and caused it to run anew from the latter date. (See: People v. Rankins, 18 Ill.2d 260, 163 N.E.2d 814; People v. Morris, 3 Ill.2d 437, 121 N.E.2d 810; People v. Niemoth, 409 Ill. 111, 98 N.E.2d 733.) If this is so, trial on October 29, 1959, was in apt time. The critical question thus presented is whether defendant caused or contributed to the delay of trial.
Relevant facts show that defendant and a codefendant, James Carter, were brought before the court for arraignment on June 22, 1959. Two separate indictments were involved, one charging defendant alone with armed robbery and the other charging him jointly with Carter with having committed another offense of armed robbery. The former indictment is at issue here. Also in attendance at the proceeding were two women whom the trial court took to be the fiancees of the prisoners. The court first advised the two men of the charges against them and then inquired if either had a lawyer. At this point Carter's fiancee stated that he did not have a lawyer, but would get one before trial, and the other woman volunteered the same information with respect to defendant, adding that the latter's mother was going to take care of the matter. The court then stated: 'If you think you can employ a lawyer for them, I'll continue it right now until you get a lawyer for him,' and asked the two prisoners if it was 'satisfactory' to them if the matter was put over for one week. Both men, however, replied...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Andrade
...interjected the issue of continuing the case. Beyah, 67 Ill.2d at 428, 10 Ill.Dec. 568, 367 N.E.2d 1334, quoting People v. Wyatt, 24 Ill.2d 151, 154, 180 N.E.2d 478 (1962). Beyah is distinguishable. In the case before us, there is no evidence that the State or the court was not ready to pro......
-
People v. Turner
...to a delay of the trial, citing People v. Beyah (1977), 67 Ill.2d 423, 10 Ill.Dec. 568, 367 N.E.2d 1334, and People v. Wyatt (1962), 24 Ill.2d 151, 180 N.E.2d 478. Though there is a distinction, we do not find those two cases helpful for the In Beyah, the court and attorneys were occupied i......
-
People v. Williams
...mandatory; they confer on a defendant a substantial and absolute right. (People v. Emblen, 362 Ill. 142, 199 N.E. 281; People v. Wyatt, 24 Ill.2d 151, 180 N.E.2d 478.) Unquestionably, a defendant who is not brought to trial as required by this law is entitled to a discharge for want of pros......
-
People v. Hickman
...on the trial court's own motion may not be chargeable to defendant (see People v. House, 10 Ill.2d 556, 141 N.E.2d 12; People v. Wyatt, 24 Ill.2d 151, 180 N.E.2d 478), we believe that it was incumbent upon defendant or his counsel to object to the continuance in this instance. To permit def......