{ "id": 2708149, "name": "John T. Thomas, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent", "name_abbreviation": "Thomas v. State", "decision_date": "1980-03-21", "docket_number": "No. 6136", "first_page": "8", "last_page": "11", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "34 Ill. Ct. Cl. 8" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. Ct. Cl.", "id": 8793, "name": "Illinois Court of Claims" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "262 N.E. 2d 233", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "127 Ill. App. 2d 134", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2473514 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/127/0134-01" ] }, { "cite": "73 Ill. Ct. Cl. 65", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. Ct. Cl.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "73 Ill. Ct. Cl. 64", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. Ct. Cl.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "30 Ill. Ct. Cl. 546", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. Ct. Cl.", "case_ids": [ 2742441, 2757918 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-ct-cl/30/0546-02", "/ill-ct-cl/30/0546-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 369, "char_count": 5873, "ocr_confidence": 0.894, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.08367167352227871 }, "sha256": "d8af89c72c93d20a23e010060755797054735d77a13d7a35942c0607c248b7c1", "simhash": "1:6a9a88983d47c63a", "word_count": 1022 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:56:32.678350+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "John T. Thomas, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Holderman, J.\nComplainant seeks recovery for time \u201cunjustly served in prison\u201d under the provisions of Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 37, par. 439.8(c). That section provided as follows:\n\u201cThe Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and to determine the following matters:\n(c) All claims against the State for time unjustly served in prisons of the State where the persons imprisoned prove their innocence of the crime for which they were imprisoned; provided, the Court shall make no award in excess of any of the following amounts: for imprisonment of five years or less, not more than $15,000.00 \u00b0 \u00b0 \u00b0 and provided further, the Court shall fix attorney fees not to exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the award granted.\u201d\nThe events in this case were in the following sequence:\nOn January 4, 1968, Claimant was indicted by a grand jury in Cook County on 3 counts of murder. At the close of the case 2 counts were dismissed and the only count remaining was \u201cfelony murder\u201d. The gist of this charge was that one John S. Benson was shot and killed by a companion of Claimant while the two of them were attempting a robbery. He was found guilty and on February 16, 1968, was sentenced to a term of not less than 20 nor more than 40 years.\nThe Claimant appealed and on June 26, 1970, the Appellate Court reversed without remand.\nOn August 14, 1970, after 34 months confinement, Claimant was released.\nThereafter, on May 14, 1971, he filed his claim before this Court and a hearing was held before the Commissioner on May 4, 1972.\nThe difficulty comes in interpreting the effect of an amendment to Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 37, par. 439.8(c) which was effective on October 1,1972, after the hearing herein but before final disposition. The section as amended provides:\n\u201c(c) All claims against the State for time unjustly served in prison of this State where the persons imprisoned shall receive a pardon from the Governor stating such pardon is issued on the grounds of innocence of the crime for which they were imprisoned.\u201d\nIn the instant case, no pardon was applied for. The State argues that the amended act should be applied retroactively. We have held to the contrary. Harpstreith v. State, 30 Ill. Ct. Cl. 546. There we held that since the statute made no reference to applying retroactively (as was the case in the Court of Claims Act of New York) we would not do so.\nThe State refers to McCray v. State, 73 Ill. Ct. Cl. 64, and Dillard v. State, 73 Ill. Ct. Cl. 65. In these 2 cases, the amendment to section 8(c) of the Court of Claims Act became effective before the claims were filed here. Even so, we did not dismiss the cases but continued them generally to give the Claimants time to ask for a pardon.\nFurther we have the case of Hammond v. State, No. 5894, June 16, 1977, where the facts were similar to this case now before us. There we held that the claim was \u201cto be decided under provisions of Section 8 of the Court of Claims Act as in effect prior to its amendment by Public Act 77-2089 effective October 1, 1972.\u201d\nWe therefore deny the motion of Respondent to dismiss and hold that the prior act before amendment controls here, under the sequence of facts we have listed above.\nThe testimony of the witnesses is set forth in People v. Thomas, 127 Ill. App. 2d 134, 262 N.E. 2d 233. Thomas and Robinson entered a tavern and Robinson fired the shot that resulted in a murder. However, the Court pointed out that there was no evidence of an attempt to commit a robbery and since the underlying crime was not proved, a conviction of felony murder was not warranted. The Claimant maintained throughout, and it was uncontradicted, that no communication of any robbery was ever made by the 2 men; that Robinson just walked up and shot the victim while the Claimant stood at the doorway. They entered the store solely for the purpose of purchasing some beer according to Thomas. He testified that he had no idea that Robinson was going to fire a shot. The Appellate Court agreed that the testimony favored his testimony.\nThe facts are sufficient to warrant an award.\nWe enter an award of $10,000.00 to Claimant and allow in addition the sum of $2,000.00 for attorney fees.\nORDER ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION\nHolderman, J.\nThis matter comes before the Court upon Respondent\u2019s petition for reconsideration of order granting award and the Claimant\u2019s reply to said petition.\nRespondent\u2019s petition states that Claimant, at the time of the hearing, had not secured a pardon from the Governor as was necessary. The file in the possession of the Court contains a copy of the pardon that was issued to Claimant on the 16th day of December 1977. The Court believes, in the interest of justice, it should not order a new hearing to introduce the pardon but should rely upon the pardon and hereby overrules that part of Respondent\u2019s petition for reconsideration dealing with said pardon.\nThe Respondent\u2019s petition also states that the Court shall fix attorney fees, not award attorney fees, and that said fees shall be fixed as a percentage of the award granted.\nIt is hereby ordered:\nThat the Court\u2019s previous order of March 21, 1980, granting Claimant an award in the amount of $10,000.00 is reaffirmed and Claimant\u2019s claim for attorney fees heretofore granted is now denied.\nORDER ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION\nHolderman, J.\nThis matter comes before the Court upon Claimant\u2019s petition for reconsideration of order of May 27, 1980.\nThis Court, upon review of the file in this matter, enters an award in the amount of $12,000.00 and fixes attorney fees in the amount of $2,000.00.", "type": "majority", "author": "Holderman, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Gomric and Strellis (Jack A. Strellis, of counsel), for Claimant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(No. 6136\nJohn T. Thomas, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent.\nOrder filed March 21, 1980.\nOrder on petition for reconsideration filed May 27, 1980.\nOrder on petition for reconsideration filed August 22, 1980.\nGomric and Strellis (Jack A. Strellis, of counsel), for Claimant." }, "file_name": "0008-01", "first_page_order": 110, "last_page_order": 113 }