{ "id": 2851201, "name": "The People ex rel. Paul David Kelley, Appellant, vs. Max P. Frye, Warden, Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "People ex rel. Kelley v. Frye", "decision_date": "1968-11-22", "docket_number": "No. 41288", "first_page": "287", "last_page": "291", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "41 Ill. 2d 287" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "104 So. 783", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "89 Fla. 494", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Fla.", "case_ids": [ 1647203 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/fla/89/0494-01" ] }, { "cite": "299 S.W. 739", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "175 Ark. 453", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1403598 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/175/0453-01" ] }, { "cite": "2 N.E. 289", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "103 Ind. 69", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ind.", "case_ids": [ 1362026 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ind/103/0069-01" ] }, { "cite": "361 Ill. 60", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2596521 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "63" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/361/0060-01" ] }, { "cite": "30 A.L.R. 719", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "391 Ill. 565", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2512004 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "570-71" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/391/0565-01" ] }, { "cite": "406 Ill. 490", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2635307 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "493" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/406/0490-01" ] }, { "cite": "202 Ill. 493", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 847192 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "497-98" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/202/0493-01" ] }, { "cite": "33 Ill.2d 453", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2886031 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "456" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/33/0453-01" ] }, { "cite": "35 Ill.2d 589", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5380443 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "590" }, { "page": "590" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/35/0589-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 493, "char_count": 7919, "ocr_confidence": 0.79, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.418291302629475e-07, "percentile": 0.8007337493421431 }, "sha256": "46c84aea531af2dec3b64b9751fbf9b098cebeced5e6e0a5a7ea6d710ed0f946", "simhash": "1:a2ace3deb1caa4b9", "word_count": 1349 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:02:11.612060+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "The People ex rel. Paul David Kelley, Appellant, vs. Max P. Frye, Warden, Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Underwood\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nRelator, Paul David Kelley, filed a pro se appeal from a judgment of the Madison County circuit court dismissing his habeas corpus petition. No brief has been filed by the State, and the cause was submitted without oral argument.\nOn April 1, 1965, the Madison County grand jury returned a five-count indictment, four counts of which were contained on the first page and charged Kelley and others with murder. The fifth count charged the same individuals with conspiring to and committing murder, and was contained on the second page of the indictment. On page 1 of the printed form appeared the printed words \u201ca true bill\u201d which had been \u201cx-ed\u201d out and thereunder a line for signature on which was written the name \u201cHelen Johnson\u201d. The words \u201cForeman of the Grand Jury\u201d appearing underneath this line had also been \u201cx-ed\u201d out with a typewriter. On the second and last page below the fifth count appeared the following:\n\u201ca true bill\nForeman of the Grand Jury\u201d\nThis indictment was returned in open court, bail denied and a warrant ordered over the signature of the trial judge.\nRelator asserts that count V of the indictment was quashed on his motion. The record before us contains neither corroboration nor denial of this. Relator further asserts that he and his counsel filed in June, 1965, a petition \u201cto determine the defendant, Paul David Kelley\u2019s mental competency for the present date it being June 25, 1965, and the defendant, Paul David Kelley\u2019s sanity during the commission of the crime which occurred on February 4, 1965.\u201d This petition is not in the record, but it seems clear that such a petition was filed and that thereafter the relator was examined by three doctors, at least two of whom, and perhaps all three, were psychiatrists. It is unclear whether these examinations were made as a result of a court order or at the request of prosecuting and defense counsel. In any event at a hearing commencing July 8 relator, who was then in court with his counsel, specifically waived a jury trial of the competency question and requested the judge to hear and determine the matter. Two of the doctors testified, Dr. Groves B. Smith and Dr. John H. McMahon stating their opinion that relator was competent and able to co-operate with and assist counsel. They found no psychosis. Dr. F. W. Sokolowski was ill, and, after several continuances to permit his appearance, it was stipulated that he would, if present, testify in accordance with his written report. It found the then 20-year-old relator suffering from \u201cschizophrenia with psychosis and immaturity,\u201d but made no specific finding as to competency or ability to co-operate with counsel.\nOn the basis of this evidence the trial judge found relator competent. Thereafter, on September 7 relator pleaded guilty to the murder charge and on September 27 was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 50 to 100 years.\nRelator states the issues here as follows: (1) \u201cWhether the trial court correctly ruled that the indictment is not void,\u201d (2) \u201cWhether the trial court correctly ruled that the defendant waived his rights to have the issue of his sanity during the commission of the crime determined,\u201d (3) whether the court properly ruled that it had \u201cjurisdiction to receive a plea of guilty * * * before answering the question of his sanity during the commission of the crime which had been raised and some evidence had been introduced tending to prove insanity.\u201d\nWe have frequently stated the scope of habeas corpus actions which, under our statute (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1963, chap. 65, par. 22) and case law, are limited to those instances where the judgment of conviction was void or something has occurred since detention to entitle a prisoner to his release. (People ex rel. Skinner v. Randolph, 35 Ill.2d 589, 590, and cases there cited.) Nonjurisdictional errors are not reachable by habeas corpus. (People ex rel. Rose v. Randolph, 33 Ill.2d 453, 456.) \u201cA person imprisoned under the sentence of a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and the person of the defendant, and power to render the judgment, cannot be discharged on habeas corpus because of irregularities in the proceedings under which he is convicted, his remedy in such cases being by writ of error.\u201d People ex rel. Georgetown v. Murphy, 202 Ill. 493, 497-98, quoted with approval in People ex rel. Skinner v. Randolph, 35 Ill.2d 589, 590.\nIt is clear, therefore, that the alleged errors complained of by relator in connection with the court\u2019s determination of competency are not of jurisdictional stature. As to them, dismissal of the habeas corpus petition was unquestionably proper.\nThe validity of the indictment, however, is properly challenged by habeas corpus if it is in fact void, for a void indictment confers no jurisdiction upon the court. (People v. Edge, 406 Ill. 490, 493; People v. Nickols, 391 Ill. 565, 570-71.) Relator\u2019s argument is that the absence of the foreman\u2019s signature below the words \u201ca true bill\u201d appearing at the conclusion of count V on page 2 of the indictment renders the indictment void in its entirety, and that the signature on page 1 cannot validate that document, for the words \u201ca true bill\u201d appearing on page 1 have been obliterated, and the indictment therefore fails to conform to our statutory requirement (Ill. Rev. Stat., 1963, chap. 78, par. 17) that the foreman of a grand jury indorse on each indictment the words \u201cA true bill\u201d and \u201csign his name as foreman, at the foot of said indorsement, * * Relator further urges that, since count V was quashed, all of page 2, including the words \u201ca true bill\u201d, have been eliminated, legally speaking, from the indictment and, therefore, nothing remains of page 2.\nWhile there appears considerable lack of harmony in other jurisdictions (see anno. 30 A.L.R. 719) regarding the effect of an unendorsed indictment, this court in People ex rel. Merrill v. Hazard, 361 Ill. 60, 63, considered the validity of an indictment which bore no signature by the foreman. Our statute then provided as it still does that the foreman should indorse the words \u201c A true bill\u201d upon the indictment and sign his name below the indorsement. The court there said: \u201cWe are of the opinion that the signature of the foreman of the grand jury is required only as a matter of direction to the clerk and for the information of the court; that its presence or absence does not materially affect any substantial right of the defendant, and that it neither assures to him nor prevents him from having a fair trial. Our holding to the contrary in Nomaque v. People, supra, is expressly overruled. The circuit court of Champaign County had jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, and the writ [habeas corpus] will therefore be denied.\u201d\nIt is apparent, therefore, that relator cannot prevail unless enactment of section Ill \u2014 3(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in 1963 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1963, chap. 38, par. 111 \u2014 3(b)) can be said to have altered the effect of Hazard. That section provides \u201cAn indictment shall be signed by the foreman of the Grand Jury * * *.\u201d We need not, however, decide the effect of this amendment upon Hazard for the instant indictment did bear the signature of Helen Johnson who we assume, and it is not argued to the contrary, was the grand jury foreman. The facts that she signed at the foot of page 1 of the indictment instead of page 2, and that the words \u201ca true bill\u201d appearing on page 2 are after the signature instead of before are of no consequence. Hazard; State v. Bowman, 103 Ind. 69, 2 N.E. 289; Withem v. State, 175 Ark. 453, 299 S.W. 739; Burnes v. State, 89 Fla. 494, 104 So. 783.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Madison County is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Underwood" } ], "attorneys": [ "Paul David Kelley, pro se." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(No. 41288.\nThe People ex rel. Paul David Kelley, Appellant, vs. Max P. Frye, Warden, Appellee.\nOpinion filed November 22, 1968.\nPaul David Kelley, pro se." }, "file_name": "0287-01", "first_page_order": 297, "last_page_order": 301 }