Glenn v. the People

On November 20, 1952, Herbert Glenn, hereinafter called appellant, was found guilty in the criminal court of Cook County under
an indictment charging him with the crime against nature, and was sentenced to serve a term of five to twenty years in the
Illinois State Penitentiary. The court appointed counsel on his behalf and he waived jury trial, entered a plea of not guilty,
and was tried before the court. On January 27, 1956, he filed, in the original criminal case, a motion in the nature of a
writ of error coram nobis under section 72 of the Civil Practice Act, (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1955, chap. 110, par. 72,) asking that
the judgment of conviction be vacated on the ground that he was insane at the time of the commission of the alleged offense
and therefore incapable of committing any crime against the laws of the State of Illinois. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1955, chap. 38,
par. 592.) The People moved to dismiss the motion upon the grounds hereinafter considered. The motion to dismiss was sustained
by order of the court entered on January 27, 1956. On February 3, 1956, appellant filed a motion to vacate the order of January
27 on the ground that the court, in entering that order, had misinterpreted and misapplied the applicable provisions of the
Criminal Code, and that the effect of the order was to deny full faith and credit to the judgment of a sister State, contrary
to the provisions of the constitutions of the United States and the State of Illinois. The question of the competency of court
appointed counsel is not raised in this proceeding. On February 15, 1956, the court, after hearing, entered an order denying the motion to vacate. Appellant appealed directly
to this court from both orders, on the ground that a constitutional question is involved. (People v. Humphreys, 353 Ill. 340;
People v. McGurn, 341 Ill. 632.) He further contended that under the decisions of this court, his motion, filed in the criminal
action involving a crime above the grade of a misdemeanor, which under our former practice was in the nature of a writ of
error, continued the identity of the cause as a criminal case, and that the orders entered therein are directly reviewable.
We are in accord with appellant's contention in this respect. (People v. Quidd, 409 Ill. 137; Schroers v. People, 399 Ill.
428.) However, we must observe that the proceedings under the petition or motion are not a continuation of the original proceeding.
Ill. Rev. Stat. 1955, chap. 110, par. 72(2).