The People v. Jedyenak

Illinois Supreme Court

The People v. Jedyenak

61 N.E.2d 357, 390 Ill. 402, 1945 Ill. LEXIS 307

CourtIllinois Supreme Court

DecidedMay 23, 1945

DocketNo. 28552. Judgment affirmed.

StatusPublished

This text of 61 N.E.2d 357 (The People v. Jedyenak) 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

The People v. Jedyenak, 61 N.E.2d 357, 390 Ill. 402, 1945 Ill. LEXIS 307 (Ill. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Stone

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a writ of error to secure reversal of a judgment of the criminal court of Cook county entered pursuant to the mandate of this court. (People v. Panczko et al., 381 Ill. 625.) Plaintiff in error contends he .is entitled to be resentenced under the Parole Act as amended in 1943.

The facts of this case are the same as those in People v. Panczko, ante, p. 398, decided at this term. The questions raised are the same. Both plaintiff in error here and Panczko were tried, convicted and sentenced at the same trial and on the same charge of burglary. The causes were sent back in both cases for resentence under the holding in People v. Montana, 380 Ill. 596. Plaintiff in error concedes that he was resentenced in conformity with the statute in force at the time of the original sentence but insists he is entitled to the benefit of the 1943 amendment to the Parole Act, (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1943, chap. 38, par. 802,) which provides that the trial court, in imposing sentence, shall fix a minimum and maximum sentence to be served by the person convicted of a crime coming within the provision of the act.

As questions raised here are decided in People v. Panczko, ante, p. 398, that ruling is controlling here. It is not necessary to enter into a rediscussion of them. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Mr. Justice Stone

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a writ of error to secure reversal of a judgment of the criminal court of Cook county entered pursuant to the mandate of this court. (People v. Panczko et al., 381 Ill. 625.) Plaintiff in error contends he .is entitled to be resentenced under the Parole Act as amended in 1943.

The facts of this case are the same as those in People v. Panczko, ante, p. 398, decided at this term. The questions raised are the same. Both plaintiff in error here and Panczko were tried, convicted and sentenced at the same trial and on the same charge of burglary. The causes were sent back in both cases for resentence under the holding in People v. Montana, 380 Ill. 596. Plaintiff in error concedes that he was resentenced in conformity with the statute in force at the time of the original sentence but insists he is entitled to the benefit of the 1943 amendment to the Parole Act, (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1943, chap. 38, par. 802,) which provides that the trial court, in imposing sentence, shall fix a minimum and maximum sentence to be served by the person convicted of a crime coming within the provision of the act.

As questions raised here are decided in People v. Panczko, ante, p. 398, that ruling is controlling here. It is not necessary to enter into a rediscussion of them. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 N.E.2d 357, 390 Ill. 402, 1945 Ill. LEXIS 307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-people-v-jedyenak-ill-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack