{ "id": 2895217, "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, vs. Tennie Weaver, Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Weaver", "decision_date": "1970-03-24", "docket_number": "No. 42540", "first_page": "136", "last_page": "139", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "45 Ill. 2d 136" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "394 U.S. 217", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6170433 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/394/0217-01" ] }, { "cite": "42 Ill.2d 69", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2848165 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "73" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/42/0069-01" ] }, { "cite": "36 Ill.2d 194", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5378033 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "199" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/36/0194-01" ] }, { "cite": "37 Ill.2d 96", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2866389 ], "weight": 4, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "101" }, { "page": "101" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/37/0096-01" ] }, { "cite": "21 Ill.2d 81", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2732826 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/21/0081-01" ] }, { "cite": "411 Ill. 21", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5312521 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/411/0021-01" ] }, { "cite": "6 Ill.2d 109", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2707753 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/6/0109-01" ] }, { "cite": "32 Ill.2d 291", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2840958 ], "weight": 4, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "294" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/32/0291-01" ] }, { "cite": "34 Ill.2d 402", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2880599 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/34/0402-01" ] }, { "cite": "39 Ill.2d 286", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2857362 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/39/0286-01" ] }, { "cite": "39 Ill.2d 61", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2856504 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/39/0061-01" ] }, { "cite": "395 U.S. 959", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1771907, 1771881, 1772210, 1772180, 1772212, 1772117 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/395/0959-03", "/us/395/0959-01", "/us/395/0959-05", "/us/395/0959-04", "/us/395/0959-02", "/us/395/0959-06" ] }, { "cite": "41 Ill.2d 434", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2853978 ], "weight": 4, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/41/0434-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 416, "char_count": 6408, "ocr_confidence": 0.771, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.2126756114298087e-07, "percentile": 0.866593959725065 }, "sha256": "06701701241c887c810670a3099b6433e3384932d193b16eaceb7dee9483b503", "simhash": "1:432bdd03c82c3f29", "word_count": 1036 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:46:26.452896+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "The People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, vs. Tennie Weaver, Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Kluczynski\ndelivered the opinion of the court :\nOn this appeal from the circuit court of Rock Island County, petitioner, Tennie Weaver, complains that his petition filed pursuant to the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1967, ch. 38, par. 122 \u2014 1 et seq.) was improperly denied.\nWeaver was tried by a jury, found guilty of the crimes of burglary, possession of burglary tools and theft, and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary. Upon direct appeal his conviction and sentence were affirmed. (41 Ill.2d 434, cert. den. 395 U.S. 959.) This petition for post-conviction relief was then filed where it is alleged that in several respects his constitutional right to a fair trial was denied him. The State filed a motion to dismiss, contending that our prior decision in People v. Weaver, 41 Ill.2d 434, is res judicata as to the contentions raised in the petition. The trial court, addressing itself to the merits of petitioner\u2019s claims, denied petitioner\u2019s request upon finding no deprivation of substantial constitutional rights. Throughout all of the proceedings, petitioner has been represented by privately retained counsel. (The report of the case in 41 Ill.2d 434, stating at p. 435 that counsel was appointed, is incorrect.)\nOn his first appeal before this court, petitioner attacked \u201cthe constitutionality of a search of the automobile in which he had ridden to the scene of the alleged crime, [contending] that one of the three counts of the indictment failed to charge an offense, and [challenging] the sufficiency of the evidence to establish guilt upon the other two counts \u2014burglary and possession of burglary tools.\u201d 41 Ill.2d at 435-\nOn this appeal, it is petitioner\u2019s claim that his constitutional right to a fair trial was denied him in that: (1) the trial court admitted, over his objections, statements charged to him which he contends required a hearing to determine admissibility; (2) the trial court failed to question the jurors regarding their exposure to certain newspaper and television reports; (3) the trial court refused to excuse a juror upon the peremptory challenge of the petitioner; (4) the State was allowed to exercise peremptory challenges although it had no statutory right to do so; (5) the trial court instructed the jury to use a different standard in evaluating petitioner\u2019s credibility than that of a testifying police officer; (6) the trial judge made prejudicial comments in the presence of the jury; and (7) the prosecution presented evidence of alleged separate criminal offenses upon which defendant had not been convicted and which were not felonies.\nAt the outset we are confronted with the question of whether consideration of the issues raised in the present petition is precluded by application of the doctrines of res judicata and waiver.\nThis court has consistently held that the Post-Conviction Hearing Act was not intended to be used as a means of obtaining further consideration of claims of denial of constitutional rights where a review of the issues raised has been had. (People v. Hill, 39 Ill.2d 61; People v. Collins, 39 Ill.2d 286; People v. Ashley, 34 Ill.2d 402; People v. Hamby, 32 Ill.2d 291; Ciucci v. People, 21 Ill.2d 8l; People v. Dolgin, 6 Ill.2d 109; People v. Jennings, 411 Ill. 21.) Where review has once been had by a writ of error, including presentation of a bill of exceptions, any claim which might have been raised, but was not, is considered waived. (People v. Ashley, 34 Ill.2d 402; People v. Hamby, 32 Ill.2d 291; Ciucci v. People, 21 Ill.2d 81; People v. Dolgin, 6 Ill.2d 109.) It is only where application of this salutary principle would be manifestly inconsistent with concepts of fundamental fairness that we have relaxed this rule. People v. Keagle, 37 Ill.2d 96; People v. Hamby, 32 Ill.2d 291; People v. Williams, 36 Ill.2d 194.\nPetitioner relies heavily on our decision in People v. Keagle, 37 Ill.2d 96. However, we do not find that case controlling on the facts at bar. In Keagle, we considered petitioner\u2019s claim because it presented a constitutional problem relating \u201cto the fundamental fairness of the defendant\u2019s record trial * * The contention there was \u201chighly technical * * * [and] unrelated to guilt or innocence * * * [and on his prior appeal] the claim was inadequately presented * * * by the defendant whose brief was, ostensibly at least, filed pro se. \u201d (37 Ill.2d at 101.) Likewise, are People v. Hamby, 32 Ill.2d 291, 294, where, on his first appeal, petitioner\u2019s court-appointed counsel refused to advance certain arguments requested by petitioner; and, People v. Williams, 36 Ill.2d 194, 199, where recent United State Supreme Court decisions might have had a drastic effect on petitioner\u2019s original trial. (See also other cases cited in People v. Keagle, 37 Ill.2d at 101.) In the case at bar, we are unable to perceive any persuasive reason for relaxation of this rule. (Cf. People v. Mamolella, 42 Ill.2d 69.) Petitioner also relies strongly on Kaufman v. United States, 394 U.S. 217, 22 L. Ed. 2d 227, 89 S. Ct. 1068, to the effect that the doctrines of res judicata and waiver are not applicable to proceedings under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act. After careful analysis, we find this decision to be inapplicable to the case before us. See People v. Jennings, 411 Ill. 21.\nIn all the proceedings had in this matter, petitioner has been represented by privately retained counsel. His trial attorney prosecuted Weaver\u2019s first appeal to this court, and there is no contention made here that petitioner\u2019s trial-appellate counsel inadequately represented him. Furthermore, all of the errors advanced in this petition were of record and known at the time of petitioner\u2019s first appeal. Accordingly, we find that the claims presented here were waived. To hold otherwise would only prolong this proceeding interminably. People v. Mamolella, 42 Ill.2d 69, 73.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Rock Island County is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Kluczynski" } ], "attorneys": [ "Julius Lucius Echeles and Frederick F. Cohn, of Chicago, for appellant.", "William J. Scott, Attorney General, of Springfield, and James N. DeWulf, State\u2019s Attorney, of Rock Island, (Fred G. Leach, Assistant Attorney General, and Ronald C. Taber, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel,) for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(No. 42540.\nThe People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, vs. Tennie Weaver, Appellant.\nOpinion filed March 24, 1970.\nJulius Lucius Echeles and Frederick F. Cohn, of Chicago, for appellant.\nWilliam J. Scott, Attorney General, of Springfield, and James N. DeWulf, State\u2019s Attorney, of Rock Island, (Fred G. Leach, Assistant Attorney General, and Ronald C. Taber, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel,) for the People." }, "file_name": "0136-01", "first_page_order": 146, "last_page_order": 149 }