Mitchell v. the People

104 N.E.2d 285, 411 Ill. 407, 1952 Ill. LEXIS 257
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 21, 1952
DocketN. R. 1243
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 104 N.E.2d 285 (Mitchell v. the People) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mitchell v. the People, 104 N.E.2d 285, 411 Ill. 407, 1952 Ill. LEXIS 257 (Ill. 1952).

Opinion

Per Curiam :

Petitioner, imprisoned in the Illinois State Penitentiary, under a life sentence for the crime of murder, seeks release from that sentence under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1951, chap. 38, pars. 826-832.) He contends that his three counsel, who were selected and retained by him, were incompetent; wherefore, he conceives that he has been denied due process of law.

Ordinarily, a defendant who retains counsel of his own selection is responsible if that counsel does not faithfully serve his interest. Any other rule would put a premium upon pretended incompetence of counsel; for, if the rule were otherwise, a lawyer with a desperate case would have only to neglect it in order to ensure reversal or vacation of the conviction.

Moreover, in this case, the trial court granted petitioner a hearing on affidavits, which affidavits satisfied that court that petitioner’s claims were without merit in point of fact. Petitioner claims that he was not present at that hearing, nor was he permitted to call witnesses. He was, however, represented by counsel appointed by the court.

The Post-Conviction Hearing Act contemplates that the trial court may, if in the particular situation it is feasible to do so, try controverted issues of fact upon affidavits in lieu of oral testimony. The legislature has provided that mode of trial which we have held constitutional. People v. Dale, 406 Ill. 238. See, also, People v. Jennings, 411 Ill. 21.

Petitioner fails to demonstrate either that he was denied due process of law at the time of his original trial and conviction or that the record in this instant proceeding is infected with prejudicial error.

Writ of error denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Sweeney
361 N.E.2d 344 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1977)
State v. Harper
205 N.W.2d 1 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1973)
People v. Allen
270 N.E.2d 54 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1971)
The PEOPLE v. Rose
253 N.E.2d 456 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1969)
The PEOPLE v. Nelson
246 N.E.2d 244 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1969)
People v. Van Dyke
245 N.E.2d 324 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1969)
The People v. Washington
241 N.E.2d 425 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1968)
The PEOPLE v. Stack
177 N.E.2d 98 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1961)
State v. Mode
360 P.2d 159 (Washington Supreme Court, 1961)
The People v. Richardson
161 N.E.2d 268 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1959)
The PEOPLE v. Cox
146 N.E.2d 19 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1957)
People v. Stephens
128 N.E.2d 731 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1955)
People v. Heirens
122 N.E.2d 231 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1954)
People v. Morris
121 N.E.2d 810 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1954)
People v. Vitale
119 N.E.2d 784 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1954)
People v. Cummins
111 N.E.2d 307 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1953)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
104 N.E.2d 285, 411 Ill. 407, 1952 Ill. LEXIS 257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchell-v-the-people-ill-1952.