People Ex Rel. Rudin v. Ruddell

263 N.E.2d 48, 46 Ill. 2d 248, 1970 Ill. LEXIS 472
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 29, 1970
Docket42673
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 263 N.E.2d 48 (People Ex Rel. Rudin v. Ruddell) 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
People Ex Rel. Rudin v. Ruddell, 263 N.E.2d 48, 46 Ill. 2d 248, 1970 Ill. LEXIS 472 (Ill. 1970).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Burt

delivered the opinion of the court:

On April 21, 1966, petitioner, John Frederick Rudin, was found guilty by the circuit court of Cook County of a building code violation and was fined $2600 and costs. On October 23, 1969, a warrant for petitioner’s arrest was issued and he was ordered to be confined in the House of Correction to work out the fine at the rate of five dollars a day, with the provision that the imprisonment should not exceed six months. We granted leave to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Although the grounds for release from confinement by a writ of habeas corpus are narrowly limited, it is well settled that such relief is warranted where the court which imposed the sentence lacked jurisdiction. (People ex rel. Maglori v. Siman, 284 Ill. 28.) It is also well established by the decisions of this court that an undue delay between the entry of judgment and the execution of the sentence deprives the sentencing court of jurisdiction. (People ex rel. Boenert v. Barrett, 202 Ill. 287; People ex rel. Smith v. Allen, 155 Ill. 61; see People ex rel. Farrell v. Pate, 39 Ill.2d 469, 472; People ex rel. Houston v. Frye, 35 Ill.2d 591, 593.) This rule is applicable to imprisonment for non-payment of a fine People ex rel. Powers v. Shattuck, 274 Ill. 491.

The delay of more than three years between the imposition of the fine and the arrest and confinement of petitioner was unreasonable and unexplained. The trial court was without jurisdiction to order petitioner’s confinement and it is therefore ordered that he be discharged.

Petitioner discharged.

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

Related

People v. Williams
723 N.E.2d 852 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 2000)
People v. Sanders
544 N.E.2d 788 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1989)
Crump v. Lane
500 N.E.2d 649 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1986)
People v. Santos
497 N.E.2d 374 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1986)
Walker v. Hardiman
489 N.E.2d 411 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1986)
Lofendo v. Ozog
454 N.E.2d 806 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1983)
People v. Ripa
449 N.E.2d 977 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1983)
Ball v. Whyte
294 S.E.2d 270 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1982)
State v. Drake
259 N.W.2d 862 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1977)
People v. Murdock
365 N.E.2d 1301 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1977)
People v. Walker
351 N.E.2d 410 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1976)
Erbe v. State
336 A.2d 129 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1975)
People Ex Rel. Millet v. Woods
302 N.E.2d 32 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1973)
People v. Jones
282 N.E.2d 248 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
263 N.E.2d 48, 46 Ill. 2d 248, 1970 Ill. LEXIS 472, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-rudin-v-ruddell-ill-1970.