DocketNumber: No. 29235. Judgment affirmed.
Citation Numbers: 69 N.E.2d 285, 394 Ill. 553, 1946 Ill. LEXIS 413
Judges: Stone
Filed Date: 9/18/1946
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/8/2024
Plaintiff in error, Valdemar Norwitt, was, on September 1, 1938, convicted, on a plea of not guilty and trial before the criminal court of Cook county without a jury, of the crime of indecent liberties with a child. He was sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for an indeterminate term of one to twenty years. He prosecutes this writ of error pro se. No bill of exceptions has been filed and we have before us for review only the common-law record. He has filed what purports to be a transcript of the evidence but which was not presented to or signed by the trial court. Such cannot be taken in lieu of a bill of exceptions.
The brief of the plaintiff in error is voluminous and many errors are assigned, referring to proceedings on the trial. In the absence of a bill of exceptions preserving these questions for review by this court, they may not now be considered on the record before us. Our examination of the case is necessarily limited to the review of the common-law record presented. People
v. Conn,
Both the judgment and pronouncement of sentence by the court found the plaintiff in error guilty of the "crime of indecent liberties with a child in the manner and form as charged in the indictment." Plaintiff in error contends that inasmuch as the statute under which he was indicted recites the words "with the intent of arousing, appealing to and gratifying the lust, passions and sexual desires" of the accused, the child, or both, that the pronouncement of the court is incomplete and insufficient to find him guilty of any crime, since taking indecent liberties is not a crime *Page 555
unless the intent recited by the statute is shown. This precise question was presented in the case of People v. Jensen,
The judgment of the trial court here found the plaintiff in error guilty of the crime "of indecent liberties with a child in the manner and form as charged in the indictment." A perusal of the indictment shows it to include the language of the statute, which plaintiff in error complains was omitted from the judgment order. There is no merit to this contention.
Plaintiff in error next contends that the Sentence and Parole Act as applied in the State of Illinois, amends in effect all penalties provided by the Criminal Code, and extends the operation of the Habitual Criminal Act to all persons who are given an indeterminate sentence, and that the Sentence and Parole Act is thus unconstitutional. This theory of plaintiff in error is based on his contention that sex offenders are not being considered for parole by the Parole Board, thus making his indeterminate sentence, of one to twenty years, in reality a sentence for twenty years. *Page 556
We have frequently announced that under the statute then existing a sentence to the penitentiary is a sentence for the maximum term provided by law for the offense for which sentence is imposed.(People v. Tyson,
It is next contended that the sentence rendered was excessive, oppressive and so out of proportion to the crime committed as to be a violation of the State and Federal constitutions. In support of this contention, plaintiff in error reiterates his argument that the action of the Parole Board has caused his indeterminate sentence of one to twenty years to become a sentence for the maximum of twenty years. We have heretofore shown that this position is untenable. Plaintiff in error also seeks to have us compare his punishment with that given in other sex cases cited by him. This is clearly a matter outside the common-law record and which need not be considered.
The judgment of the criminal court of Cook county is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed. *Page 557
The People v. Orlando , 380 Ill. 107 ( 1942 )
The People v. Conn , 391 Ill. 190 ( 1945 )
The People v. Mikula , 357 Ill. 481 ( 1934 )
The People v. Tyson , 393 Ill. 108 ( 1946 )
The People v. Capo , 393 Ill. 342 ( 1946 )
The People v. Jensen , 392 Ill. 72 ( 1945 )
The People v. Street , 353 Ill. 60 ( 1933 )
People Ex Rel. Barrett v. Sbarbaro , 386 Ill. 581 ( 1944 )
The People v. Wilson , 391 Ill. 463 ( 1945 )