People v. Little

Illinois Supreme Court

People v. Little

138 N.E.2d 480, 9 Ill. 2d 520, 1956 Ill. LEXIS 360

CourtIllinois Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 26, 1956

DocketNo. 33996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 138 N.E.2d 480 (People v. Little) 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 v. Little, 138 N.E.2d 480, 9 Ill. 2d 520, 1956 Ill. LEXIS 360 (Ill. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Schaefer

delivered the opinion of the court:

The defendant, Loren Little, was indicted in the circuit court of McDonough County for the crime of taking indecent liberties with a female child under the age of fifteen years. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of not less than one year nor more than twenty years. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1953, chap. 38, par. 109.) Evidence in aggravation and mitigation was heard, and a minimum limit of five and a maximum limit of fifteen years’ imprisonment was set. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1953, chap. 38, par. 802.) Appearing pro se, defendant prosecutes this writ of error.

He contends that his conviction cannot stand because it appears from the common-law record (1) that the trial judge failed to advise him as to his right to have counsel appointed to represent him and as to the consequences of his plea of guilty, as required by Rule 27A of this court, (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1953, chap, no, par. 259.27A,) and (2) that the court “recommended” rather than “fixed” minimum and maximum limits of imprisonment, thus rendering the judgment vague and uncertain. People v. Montana, 380 Ill. 596.

The common-law record originally filed in this court supports these contentions. An additional record filed by the People, however, shows that on May 7, 1956, the record was corrected nunc pro tunc as of October 4, 1954. The correction was based upon memorials of the circuit court, including the official docket entry kept by the court and the transcript of the proceedings upon arraignment. (See: People v. Duden, 3 Ill.2d 16.) The corrected record shows that defendant’s contentions are without merit. Prom the additional record it appears that the clerk of the circuit court inadvertently omitted those portions of the record which contained the trial judge’s full explanation to defendant of his right to be represented by counsel, his adequate admonition as to the consequences of a plea of guilty, and the inquiries and answers as required by Rule 27A. And it also appears from the corrected record that the court “fixed” rather than “recommended” minimum and maximum limits of the term of imprisonment, thus removing any uncertainty as to its duration. See: People v. Bellmeyer, 396 Ill. 552.

The judgment of the circuit court of McDonough County is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Mr. Justice Schaefer

delivered the opinion of the court:

The defendant, Loren Little, was indicted in the circuit court of McDonough County for the crime of taking indecent liberties with a female child under the age of fifteen years. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of not less than one year nor more than twenty years. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1953, chap. 38, par. 109.) Evidence in aggravation and mitigation was heard, and a minimum limit of five and a maximum limit of fifteen years’ imprisonment was set. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1953, chap. 38, par. 802.) Appearing pro se, defendant prosecutes this writ of error.

He contends that his conviction cannot stand because it appears from the common-law record (1) that the trial judge failed to advise him as to his right to have counsel appointed to represent him and as to the consequences of his plea of guilty, as required by Rule 27A of this court, (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1953, chap, no, par. 259.27A,) and (2) that the court “recommended” rather than “fixed” minimum and maximum limits of imprisonment, thus rendering the judgment vague and uncertain. People v. Montana, 380 Ill. 596.

The common-law record originally filed in this court supports these contentions. An additional record filed by the People, however, shows that on May 7, 1956, the record was corrected nunc pro tunc as of October 4, 1954. The correction was based upon memorials of the circuit court, including the official docket entry kept by the court and the transcript of the proceedings upon arraignment. (See: People v. Duden, 3 Ill.2d 16.) The corrected record shows that defendant’s contentions are without merit. Prom the additional record it appears that the clerk of the circuit court inadvertently omitted those portions of the record which contained the trial judge’s full explanation to defendant of his right to be represented by counsel, his adequate admonition as to the consequences of a plea of guilty, and the inquiries and answers as required by Rule 27A. And it also appears from the corrected record that the court “fixed” rather than “recommended” minimum and maximum limits of the term of imprisonment, thus removing any uncertainty as to its duration. See: People v. Bellmeyer, 396 Ill. 552.

The judgment of the circuit court of McDonough County is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 N.E.2d 480, 9 Ill. 2d 520, 1956 Ill. LEXIS 360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-little-ill-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack