{
  "id": 2929172,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Respondent-Appellee, v. Gerald Jenkins, Petitioner-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Jenkins",
  "decision_date": "1973-04-19",
  "docket_number": "No. 56460",
  "first_page": "690",
  "last_page": "693",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "11 Ill. App. 3d 690"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "264 N.E.2d 697",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "47 Ill.2d 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2905414
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/47/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "230 N.E.2d 194",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "37 Ill.2d 617",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2864159
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/37/0617-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "243 N.E.2d 200",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "41 Ill.2d 329",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2852365
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/41/0329-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "245 N.E.2d 485",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "42 Ill.2d 69",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2848165
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/42/0069-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "205 N.E.2d 456",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "32 Ill.2d 291",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2840958
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/32/0291-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "227 N.E.2d 745",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "37 Ill. 2d 457",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2863543
      ],
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/37/0457-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "294 N.E.2d 52",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "10 Ill.App.3d 249",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5394459
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/10/0249-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "256 N.E.2d 455",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 Ill.2d 476",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2891275
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/44/0476-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "262 N.E.2d 901",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "46 Ill.2d 104",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2899604
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/46/0104-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "223 N.E.2d 272",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 Ill.App.2d 336",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2568552
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/78/0336-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 370,
    "char_count": 5217,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.764,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.335246407585044e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5135774325066829
    },
    "sha256": "00416dd6424ea5258b46130a3ca245d46d92b6cebce050d00b4aa9bc839f34ab",
    "simhash": "1:6a17f25ab0258bff",
    "word_count": 848
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:22:35.785791+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The People of the State of Illinois, Respondent-Appellee, v. Gerald Jenkins, Petitioner-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE DEMPSEY\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nGerald Jenkins and Willie Clark were found guilty by a jury of the crime of burglary. Jenkins was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of 15 to 25 years; Clark for a term of 10 to 20 years. The convictions were appealed and affirmed. (People v. Clark (1966), 78 Ill.App.2d 336, 223 N.E.2d 272.) Jenkins thereafter filed a pro se petition under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 38, par. 122\u20141, et seq.) Counsel was appointed for him and an amended petition was filed. A hearing was held on the State\u2019s motion to dismiss the amended petition; after hearing the arguments of counsel the trial court denied the petition on its merits.\nThe defendant\u2019s amended petition questioned three aspects of his trial: the adequacy of his representation, the final argument of the State and the conduct of the judge. He charged that his trial attorney was incompetent; that the prosecutor\u2019s final argument was prejudicial, and that the trial judge improperly presided over the trial by incorrectly advising prospective jurors as to the presumption of innocence, by becoming an advocate for the State during the opening argument of the defense and by curtailing cross-examination of the State\u2019s witnesses.\nIn its motion to dismiss the petition the State asserted that: the defendant\u2019s allegations failed to raise any constitutional questions within the purview of the Post-Conviction Act; the allegations which in their broadest sense might have raised such questions were unsupported and thus were insufficient to require a hearing, and the doctrine of res judicata was applicable because of the direct appeal. A copy of the opinion in People v. Clark was appended to the motion.\nJenkins advances three contentions in this appeal. The first of these concerns the propriety of remarks made by the court at the original trial. This contention could have been raised in the prior appellate review of his conviction but was not. Under this circumstance, the issues actually raised on appeal are res judicata. Issues that could have been raised and were not are considered waived. (People v. French (1970), 46 Ill.2d 104, 262 N.E.2d 901; People v. Derengowski (1970), 44 Ill.2d 476, 256 N.E.2d 455; People v. McCarroll (1973), 10 Ill.App.3d 249, 294 N.E.2d 52.) Fundamental fairness may sometimes require a relaxation of the waiver rule (People v. Armes (1967), 37 Ill. 2d 457, 227 N.E.2d 745; People v. Hamby (1965), 32 Ill.2d 291, 205 N.E.2d 456); however, the comments complained about, although not always the most fitting examples of judicial restraint, do not warrant such relaxation.\nThe second and third contentions concern the post-conviction proceeding itself: the defendant was not afforded a full and fair hearing and he was denied due process because the same judge who presided at the trial ruled on his post-conviction petition.\nWe find no merit in the defendant\u2019s contention that he was not afforded a full and fair hearing. All of the defendant\u2019s post-conviction claims \u2014 incompetency of his trial attorney, improper conduct of the court and prejudicial closing argument by the prosecutor \u2014 were barred by the applicability of res judicata and waiver. His counsel argued capably and was in fact complimented upon his thoroughness. But, since no new matter beyond the record was brought to the court\u2019s attention and no justification was given for not having raised the issues in the prior appeal, the allegations of the petition did not necessitate an evidentiary hearing. The petition was properly denied.\nThe defendant\u2019s final contention questions the general principle of Illinois law that in the absence of a showing of substantial prejudice, the post-conviction petition should be heard by the same judge who rendered the original judgment. (People v. Mamolella (1969), 42 Ill.2d 69, 245 N.E.2d 485.) First of all, Jenkins neither made a motion for a change of venue nor filed a petition requesting assignment to another judge. Second, even if the relief were requested, it is evident that it was not necessary to have a different judge preside at the hearing.\nThe right of a change of venue in a post-conviction proceeding is not absolute. (People v. Newell (1968), 41 Ill.2d 329, 243 N.E.2d 200; People v. Wilson (1967), 37 Ill.2d 617, 230 N.E.2d 194.) However, in certain circumstances a trial judge should disqualify himself if it appears that he may be biased or may be a potential witness to events outside of the record. (People v. Williams (1970), 47 Ill.2d 1, 264 N.E.2d 697.) The trial record does not reveal bias on the part of the judge nor the likelihood that he would be a witness in a subsequent hearing. Thus, it was not improper for him to preside over the post-conviction hearing.\nThe order is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nMcNAMARA and McGLOON, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE DEMPSEY"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Douglas M. Branson, of Chicago, for appellant.",
      "Edward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Elmer C. Kissane and William D. Wolter, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Respondent-Appellee, v. Gerald Jenkins, Petitioner-Appellant.\n(No. 56460;\nFirst District (3rd Division)\nApril 19, 1973.\nDouglas M. Branson, of Chicago, for appellant.\nEdward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Elmer C. Kissane and William D. Wolter, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0690-01",
  "first_page_order": 712,
  "last_page_order": 715
}