{
  "id": 3400178,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. Albert Peters, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Peters",
  "decision_date": "1910-10-28",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "351",
  "last_page": "353",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "246 Ill. 351"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 218,
    "char_count": 4681,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.756,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4349803633133783e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6520133027060651
    },
    "sha256": "1cefaa0ffdc2c4bf0a32ec6f67896b923929dfb86c29b21181aaba691f3acca2",
    "simhash": "1:ddceed26530b1c9d",
    "word_count": 811
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:35:00.229051+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. Albert Peters, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam :\nAlbert Peters, the plaintiff in error, was indicted in the criminal court of Cook county for murder, and upon a trial the jury found him guilty of manslaughter and fixed his punishment at imprisonment in the penitentiary. Thereupon the court sentenced him to confinement in the penitentiary, and his term was fixed in the judgment as follows: \u201cUntil discharged by the State board of pardons as authorized and directed by law, provided such term of imprisonment in said penitentiary shall not exceed the maximum term for the crime for which the said defendant was convicted and sentenced.\u201d He sued out a writ of error from this court, and assigned for error that the court erred in not arresting the judgment on his motion, and that the court erred in entering an improper judgment.\nIt is first contended that the court erred in entering judgment in accordance with section I of the Parole law, for the reason that the legislature did not intend that law to apply to convictions for manslaughter, but only to cases of imprisonment where the punishment is for a number of years. The punishment provided for any person convicted of manslaughter is imprisonment in the penitentiary for his natural life or for any number of years, and the Parole law provides that the term shall not be less than one year nor exceed the maximum term provided by law for the crime of which the prisoner was convicted, making allowance for good time as provided by law. The statute having provided allowance for good time only in cases where the judgment is for a fixed number of years, it is argued that the legislature did not intend the Parole law to apply to any case where no allowance for good time is provided for, which is the case where the punishment is for life. The allowance for good time is to be made only in cases provided by law, but the Parole law specifically excepts certain crimes from its operation, and the crime of manslaughter is not included among those which are excepted. The term of imprisonment under that law must not exceed the maximum term provided by law for the crime of which the prisoner was convicted, but it has been held that an indeterminate sentence is a sentence for the maximum term, and the Parole act and sentence both provide that plaintiff in error shall not be confined beyond such maximum term, which is the period of his natural life. We do not find any reason for saying that the Parole act does not apply to the crime of manslaughter. The court did not err in refusing to arrest the judgment on the ground that the jury failed to fix the punishihent.\nThe only other claim of the plaintiff in error is that the Parole law violates the constitution, but the contrary was held in the case of People v. Joyce, (ante, p. 124.) Plaintiff in error was sentenced to confinement in the penitentiary \u201cuntil discharged by the State board of pardons as authorized and directed by law,\u201d but it was held in the case cited that \u201cthe board of pardons cannot and does not discharge a convict,\u201d and the judgment in that case was in the same terms as in this. It was there considered that a discharge under the law is by the Governor, and that such a sentence does not infringe any constitutional right.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\nJudgment af\u00edrmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam :"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Louis Greenberg, for plaintiff in error.",
      "W. H. Stead, Attorney General, John E. W. Way-man, State\u2019s Attorney, and JoEL C. Fitch, for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. Albert Peters, Plaintiff in Error.\nOpinion filed, October 28, 1910.\n1. Criminal law\u2014Parole law applies to convictions for manslaughter. The Parole law applies to convictions for manslaughter even though the statute making allowance for good time does not apply to life imprisonment.\n2. Same\u2014an indeterminate sentence is for the maximum term. An indeterminate sentence is a sentence for the maximum term provided by law, and hence the sentence of one convicted of manslaughter \u201cuntil discharged by the State board of pardons, as authorized and directed by law, provided such term of imprisonment shall not exceed the maximum term for the crime for which said defendant was convicted and sentenced,\u201d is a sentence to life imprisonment.\n3. Same\u2014discharge of prisoner under the Parole law is by the Governor. A sentence to imprisonment in the penitentiary \u201cuntil discharged by the State board of pardons, as authorized and directed by law,\u201d does not infringe any constitutional right of the person so sentenced, as the discharge, under the law, is by the Governor. (People v. Joyce, ante, p. 124, followed.)\nWrit OE Error to the Criminal Court of Cook county; the Hon. Richard S. Tuthill, Judge, presiding.\nLouis Greenberg, for plaintiff in error.\nW. H. Stead, Attorney General, John E. W. Way-man, State\u2019s Attorney, and JoEL C. Fitch, for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0351-01",
  "first_page_order": 351,
  "last_page_order": 353
}