PEOPLE v. WARR

Nos. 43127, 44212, 44493, and 45183 cons.

54 Ill.2d 487 (1973)

298 N.E.2d 164

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. DAID WARR, Appellant. — THE PEOPLE ex rel. EUGENE HENRY FINCH, Appellant, v. RICHARD ENGLISH, Warden, Appellee. — THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. EUGENE HENRY FINCH, Appellant. — THE PEOPLE ex rel., THOMAS JOHNSON, Appellant, v. SHERIFF OF COOK COUNTY et al., Appellees.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Opinion filed June 25, 1973.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

JAMES J. DOHERTY, Public Defender, of Chicago (JOHN T. MORAN, JR., Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.

WILLIAM J. SCOTT, Attorney General, of Springfield, and BERNARD CAREY, State's Attorney, of Chicago (JAMES B. ZAGEL, Assistant Attorney General, and ELMER C. KISSANE and WILLIAM K. HEDRICK, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

GERALD W. GETTY, Public Defender, of Chicago (JOHN T. MORAN, JR., and JAMES J. DOHERTY, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant.

WILLIAM J. SCOTT, Attorney General, of Springfield, and EDWARD V. HANRAHAN, State's Attorney, of Chicago (JAMES B. ZAGEL, Assistant Attorney General, and ROBERT A. NOVELLE and JAMES E. STERNIK, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee.

JAMES J. DOHERTY, Public Defender, of Chicago (JOHN T. MORAN, JR., of counsel), for appellant.

WILLIAM J. SCOTT, Attorney General, of Springfield, and BERNARD CAREY, State's Attorney, of Chicago (JAMES B. ZAGEL, Assistant Attorney General, and ELMER C. KISSANE and WILLIAM K. HEDRICK, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

JAMES J. DOHERTY, Public Defender, of Chicago (JAMES N. GRAMENOS, of counsel), for appellant.

WILLIAM J. SCOTT, Attorney General, of Springfield, and BERNARD CAREY, State's Attorney, of Chicago (ELMER C. KISSANE, of counsel), for appellee.


Reversed and remanded.

MR. JUSTICE SCHAEFER delivered the opinion of the court:

These cases, together with People v. Davis (1973), 54 Ill.2d 494, involve collateral attacks on misdemeanor convictions. Each case was dismissed because the right remedy had not been invoked. The issue in each case, therefore, is not whether the constitutional rights of the defendant were violated, but whether the defendant is entitled...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases