{ "id": 2476619, "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. Andrew Capo, Plaintiff in Error", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Capo", "decision_date": "1946-03-20", "docket_number": "No. 29300", "first_page": "342", "last_page": "345", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "393 Ill. 342" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "291 Ill. 614", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2422142 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/291/0614-01" ] }, { "cite": "391 Ill. 190", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2513070 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/391/0190-01" ] }, { "cite": "299 Ill. 201", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5022455 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/299/0201-01" ] }, { "cite": "336 Ill. 353", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5231349 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/336/0353-01" ] }, { "cite": "371 Ill. 190", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2520659 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/371/0190-01" ] }, { "cite": "389 Ill. 381", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2504372 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/389/0381-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 262, "char_count": 3511, "ocr_confidence": 0.788, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0016072084514417e-07, "percentile": 0.5390349012625832 }, "sha256": "fafe587aedab105fcd8e1495f592e3c72a5aaca367454a505686b1467bb22527", "simhash": "1:3d13ef47a89ca6f7", "word_count": 607 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:27:36.302064+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. Andrew Capo, Plaintiff in Error." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Murphy\ndelivered the opinion of the court;\nPlaintiff in error, Andrew Capo, and two others were indicted in the criminal court of Cook county for the crime of murder. Plaintiff in error selected his own counsel and after arraignment and a lapse of about ninety days, he entered a plea of guilty to manslaughter. Evidence was heard and an order entered committing him \u201cto the penitentiary of this state at Joliet for the crime of manslaughter whereof he stands convicted, for a term of years not to exceed the maximum term fixed by. statute for the crime whereof he stands convicted.\u201d He has sued a writ of error out of this court to review the proceeding but has presented nothing but the common-law record.\nIn January, 1926, when plaintiff in error was sentenced, the penalty for manslaughter was imprisonment in the penitentiary for life or any number of years. Where the accused was found guilty by a jury, it fixed the punishment in the verdict. Upon a plea of guilty the punishment was fixed by the court. (Smith\u2019s Stat. 1925, chap. 38, par. 343.) In 1927 the statute was amended to read: \u201cWhoever is guilty of manslaughter shall be imprisoned in the penitentiary for from one to fourteen years.\u201d Laws of 1927, page 398.\nPlaintiff in error contends that the judgment order did not commit him to a penitentiary, and in this connection refers to that part of the. judgment order which directs the sheriff to deliver him to the penitentiary of this State at Joliet. The contention is made without due consideration to the \u00f3ther parts of the judgment. It contains a recital of findings of fact, such as age of defendant and his guilt, and it then orders that defendant be adjudged guilty of manslaughter and that he be sentenced \u201cto the penitentiary of this state at Joliet.\u201d This question was fully considered in People v. Wockner, 389 Ill. 381, and it was there determined that the judgment was sufficient.\n. It is further contended that plaintiff in error is entitled to the benefits of the reduction of the maximum penalty for manslaughter as provided by the amendment of 1927. It is well-established law of this State that the presumption is that a statute is intended to operate prospectively only, and that it will not be construed to have retroactive operation unless the language employed is so clear that it will admit of no other construction. (People ex rel. Kerner v. McKinley, 371 Ill. 190; People ex rel. Calstrom v. David, 336 Ill. 353.) There is nothing contained in the section as amended in 1927 by which it can be construed to give it retroactive effect. People v. Simmons, 299 Ill. 201.\nThe chief complaint of plaintiff in error refers to actions of, the Parole Board. Such matters are not a part of the common-law record and cannot be considered in this case. (People v. Conn, 391 Ill. 190.) The sentence was for the maximum term provided by law. (People v. Connors, 291 Ill. 614.) The law imposes the execution of the judgment on the executive department of the government. People v. Simmons, 299 Ill. 201.\nThe judgment of the criminal court of Coolc county is affirmed.\nT . Judgment affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Murphy" } ], "attorneys": [ "Andrew Capo, pro se.", "George E. Barrett, Attorney General, and William J. Tuohy, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Edward E. Wilson, John T. Gallagher, Melvin S. Rembe, Joseph A. Pope, and C. D. Pemberton, all of Chicago, of counsel,) for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(No. 29300\nThe People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. Andrew Capo, Plaintiff in Error.\nOpinion filed March 20, 1946\nAndrew Capo, pro se.\nGeorge E. Barrett, Attorney General, and William J. Tuohy, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Edward E. Wilson, John T. Gallagher, Melvin S. Rembe, Joseph A. Pope, and C. D. Pemberton, all of Chicago, of counsel,) for the People." }, "file_name": "0342-01", "first_page_order": 342, "last_page_order": 345 }