{ "id": 2905085, "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, vs. Edward Somerville, Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Somerville", "decision_date": "1971-05-21", "docket_number": "No. 42391", "first_page": "346", "last_page": "349", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "48 Ill. 2d 346" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "44 Ill.2d 476", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2891275 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/44/0476-01" ] }, { "cite": "44 Ill.2d 332", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2888453 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/44/0332-01" ] }, { "cite": "42 Ill.2d 318", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2847945 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/42/0318-01" ] }, { "cite": "40 Ill.2d 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2857269 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "3" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/40/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "42 Ill.2d 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2846427 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/42/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "71 Ill. App. 2d 381", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2588064 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/71/0381-01" ] }, { "cite": "88 Ill. App. 2d 134", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 8499099, 8499087 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/88/0134-02", "/ill-app-2d/88/0134-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 302, "char_count": 5284, "ocr_confidence": 0.808, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.08558336798786338 }, "sha256": "19e4292a92ae516f9f77ec6c925705c2f5fbb5692f3124832bd7740d14265591", "simhash": "1:9f13ad80005c8cf9", "word_count": 878 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:14:49.671921+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "The People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, vs. Edward Somerville, Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Ryan\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis is an appeal from the circuit court of Cook County which, on motion of the State, dismissed the defendant\u2019s petition for a post-conviction hearing without conducting a hearing thereon.\nEdward Somerville, defendant herein, Paul Langusch, Robert Somerville, Gail Somerville, Douglas Aldridge and Leon Arnold were indicted for armed robbery. The defendant was tried alone, found guilty by a jury and sentenced to a term of 10 to 20 years in the State penitentiary. On appeal his conviction was affirmed by the appellate court (88 Ill. App. 2d 134) and a petition for leave to appeal to this court was denied. Robert Somerville, Gail Somerville and Paul Langusch had previously been tried and found guilty and their convictions were upheld by the appellate court (see People v. Somerville, 71 Ill. App. 2d 381) and their petition for leave to appeal to this court was denied. Subsequently to both of the above trials, Leon Arnold, who had been indicted with the others above named, testified in the case of People v. Donald Somerville et al. On cross-examination in that case he stated that he was told by an assistant State\u2019s Attorney that he \u201ccould probably get leniency.\u201d He stated that he had not been told by the assistant State\u2019s Attorney that he would get leniency and that he did not expect leniency but that he hoped for it. Arnold had testified at the trial of Robert Somerville, Gail Somerville, and Paul Langusch that no promises were made to him that he would not be prosecuted for his crime. He also testified at the trial of the defendant herein that no promise had been made to him by the State\u2019s Attorney\u2019s office or by any police officer, and on cross-examination he stated that he was testifying because he had expected leniency, that he didn\u2019t know whether he would receive leniency, that he didn\u2019t want to go to the penitentiary and that was the reason he was testifying.\nDefendant Edward Somerville in his post-conviction petition alleges that his conviction was the product of the knowing use of perjured testimony by the State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County. The testimony which he refers to is that of Leon Arnold which defendant insists was different in his trial from that which Arnold gave in the trial of Donald Somerville. Arnold\u2019s testimony in the three trials, as the same relates to any promises made to him to induce him to testify, is summarized above.\nFollowing the conviction of Robert Somerville, Gail Somerville and Paul Langusch and the affirmance thereof in the appellate court and the denial of the petition for leave to appeal in this court, those three defendants in a petition for post-conviction hearing raised the same question as has been raised by this defendant. They likewise contended that the testimony of Arnold at the Donald Somerville trial indicated the State had used perjured testimony in their trial when Arnold testified that no promises had been made to him. We reviewed the denial of the post-conviction hearing in that case in People v. Somerville, 42 Ill.2d 1, where we held at page 12 that the statements of Arnold at the various trials were not necessarily inconsistent and stated \u201cMoreover, conceivable inconsistencies in testimony of witnesses at former trials \u2018fall short of establishing a knowing use of perjury, People v. Tyner, 40 Ill.2d 1, 3.\u201d\nWe further note that the defendant raised the question of the discrepancies in Arnold\u2019s testimony on his appeal reported in 88 Ill. App. 2d 134, where the court stated: \u201cDefendant is in error in attempting to equate the words \u2018He said I could probably get leniency\u2019 with the making of a definite promise.\u201d An examination of the brief filed by defendant in that appeal reveals that the point he now seeks to have us consider was fully argued on appeal. Issues that have been raised and decided on direct appeal are barred from further consideration in a proceeding under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 38, par. 122\u20141 et seq.) under the doctrine of res judicata (People v. Mayfield, 42 Ill.2d 318; People v. Price, 44 Ill.2d 332), and in such cases an evidentiary hearing on the petition for a post-conviction hearing is unnecessary. People v. Derengowski, 44 Ill.2d 476.\n. For the reason that this court has previously determined that the discrepancies in Arnold\u2019s testimony did not indicate the use of perjured testimony by the State and for the reason that the question had been fully decided in appellate review of-defendant\u2019s conviction we hold that the trial court was not required to conduct an evidentiary hearing on defendant\u2019s petition for post-conviction relief.\nJudgment affirmed.\nKluczynsici and Ward, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Ryan" } ], "attorneys": [ "Burton D. Gould, of Chicago, Joseph V. Roddy, of counsel,) appointed by the court, for appellant.", "William J. Scott, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Edward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (James B. Zagel, Assistant Attorney General, and Robert A. Novelee and Arthur Belkind, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(No. 42391.\nThe People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, vs. Edward Somerville, Appellant.\nOpinion filed May 21, 1971.\nKlttczynski and Ward, JJ., took no part.\nBurton D. Gould, of Chicago, Joseph V. Roddy, of counsel,) appointed by the court, for appellant.\nWilliam J. Scott, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Edward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (James B. Zagel, Assistant Attorney General, and Robert A. Novelee and Arthur Belkind, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People." }, "file_name": "0346-01", "first_page_order": 356, "last_page_order": 359 }