WIlliams v. Illinois Appendix

    A P P E N D IX
if|

fttpratt? (tart of tfir Ihntth ĵ tatro
October  T e r m , 1969 

No. 1089

W illie  E . W il l ia m s ,
Appellant,

vs.

Illin o is

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS

FILED APRIL 28, 1969
PROBABLE JURISDICTION NOTED JANUARY 19, 1970



(Eourt of %  lo tto  §tato
October T e r m , 1969 

No. 1089

W illie  E. W il l ia m s ,
Appellant,

vs.

Illin o is

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS

I N D E X

Page
Record from the Municipal Court of Chicago, Fourth Munici­

pal District of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
filed December 29, 1967

Praecipe ___________ __________________________________ 1
Complaint filed June 24, 1967 _______________________  2
Arrest Warrant issued June 24, 1967 _________________  4
Order granting leave to file complaint, etc., dated August 

14, 1967 ___________________________________________ 5



INDEX (Continued)ii

Page
Record from the Municipal Court of Chicago, Fourth Munici­

pal District of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois 
filed December 29, 1967-—Continued

Order postponing case, dated August 16, 1967 ________ 7
Judgment and sentence, dated September 6, 1967 ____ 8
Notice of motion and petition, filed November 29, 1967 ...  11
Order denying petition to vacate order of September 6,

1967 _______________________________________________ 15
Notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of Illinois filed 

November 30, 1967 ________________________________  16
Proofs of service of notice of appeal (omitted in print­

ing) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - 16
Praecipe for record and proof of service (omitted in 

printing) _________________ ___________ ,____________  16
Clerk’s certificate (omitted in printing) ____________  16

Proceedings in the Supreme Court of Illinois _____________  17
Notice, affidavit, motion and order of Justice Walter V.

Schaefer filed January 31, 1968, ordering that a bystander’s 
bill of exceptions covering the proceedings of November 
29, 1967, be filed by appellant on or before February 15, 
1968, and that appellee’s brief be filed within thirty-five
days thereafter ________________________________________  17

Appellant’s answer to appellee’s motion to require appellant to 
prepare a proper record for appeal or to strike appeal, 
filed January 31, 1968 __________________________________  23

Bystander’s Bill of Exceptions, filed February 15, 1968 ____ 25
Notice, affidavit, motion and order of Justice Thomas E.

Kluczy filed May 1, 1968, granting appellee an extension 
of time to and including May 2, 1968, for filing b r ie f____ 27

Motion to enlarge defendant-appellant on his own recogniz­
ance bond or reasonable bond pending decision herein __ 31

Inmate’s Record—Cook County Jail __________________  33
Order entered May 28, 1968, allowing the motion by appellant 

that he be admitted to bail and fixing the bond in the 
amount of $500.00 to be approved by the Warden of the 
Cook County J a il_______________________________________  35

Opinion, Mr. Justice House, filed January 29, 1969 ________  36
Mandate, January 29, 1969 ______________________________  42



INDEX (Continued) iii 

Page
Notice, motion and order of Justice Daniel P. Ward filed 

February 13, 1969, staying the mandate pending final 
disposition of appellant’s appeal to the United States 
Supreme Court ____________  44

Notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, 
dated February 11, 1969 _________    48

Clerk’s certificate (omitted in printing) __ ________________  48
Order granting motion for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis ________________________________________________ 49
Order noting probable jurisdiction _______________________  49



1

TH E UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, 
ILLINOIS, MUNICIPAL DEPARTMENT, 

FOURTH DISTRICT

State of Illinois )
) SS.

County of Cook )

Pleas, Proceedings and Judgments, before The Mu­
nicipal Court of Chicago, Fourth Municipal District of 
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, held in the 
City of Maywood in the County of Cook and State of 
Illinois, at the places in said city provided by the corpo­
rate authorities of said city for the holding of said Court, 
in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and 
sixty seven and the Independence of the United States, 
the one hundred and ninety second.

Present: Honorable Joseph R. Gill, One of the Magis­
trates of the court.

J o h n  J. Sta m o s ,
State’s Attorney

J oseph  I. W oods,
Attest: Sheriff

J oseph  J. M cD on ou gh ,
Clerk

Re it Remembered, to wit: that, on November 29th, 
1967, the following among other proceedings were had in 
said court and entered of record therein, to-wit:

T h e  P eople  of tpie State  of Illin ois

v.
W illie  E. W illia m s

No. 67 MC4 53645 Criminal



2

11 (Court Branch)

T h e  P eople  of t h e  State  of Ill in o is , p l a in t if f

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

v.

W illie E. W illiams, defendant 

Complaint— Filed June 24, 1967

Edna Whitney, 219 No. 2nd Ave., Maywood, 111., com­
plainant, now appears before The Circuit Court of Cook 
County and in the name and by the authority of the Peo­
ple of the State of Illinois states that Willie E. Williams 
has, on or about June 24, 1967 at Rear of 219 No. 2nd 
Ave., Maywood, 111. committed the offense of Theft in 
that he knowingly obtained unauthorized control over 
credit cards, checks and papers of the value of less than 
one hundred and fifty dollars, the property of Edna 
Whitney, intending to deprive the said Edna Whitney 
permanently of the use and benefits of said property, in 
violation of Chapter 38, Section 16-lal, Illinois Revised 
Statute and Against the Peace and Dignity of the People 
of the State of Illinois.

/s /  Edna L. Whitney 
(Complainant’s Signature)

219 No. 2nd Ave.
(Complainant’s Address)

FI 4-0341 
(Telephone No.)



3

State of Illinois )
) SS.

County of Cook )
E d n a  W h it n e y  
(Complainant’s Signature)

being first duly sworn, on Her oath, deposes and says 
that he has read the foregoing complaint by him and 
subscribed that the same is true.

/ s /  Edna L. Whitney

Subscribed and sworn to before me June 24, 1967.

/s /  Joseph J. McDonough 
Clerk
Dep. / s /  Illegible

I have examined the above complaint and the person 
presenting the same and have heard evidence thereon, 
and am satisfied that there is probably cause for filing 
same. Leave is given to file said complaint. Warrant 
issued.

Bail Fixed at $ _______ ________

Judge



4

11 (Court Brandi)

67 MC4 53645

State  of Illin o is , p l a in t if f

v.
W illie  E. W il l ia m s , d efen dan t

A rrest W a r r a n t— Issued June 24, 1967

The People of the State of Illinois to all Peace Officers 
in the State— Greeting:
We command you to arrest Willie E. Williams, 1219 

So. Damen, Chicago, Illinois for the offense of Theft 
stated in a charge now pending before this court and that 
you bring him instanter before The Circuit Court, of 
Cook County at 125 So. 5th Ave., Maywood, Illinois or 
if I am absent or unable to act before the nearest or most 
accessible court in Cook County or if this warrant is 
executed in a, county other than Cook, before the nearest 
or most accessible judge in the county where the arrest 
is made.

Issued in Cook County _____________________ , 19___
Bail fixed at $2,000.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

/s /  Harry A. Schrier 
Judge

Witness: Joseph J. McDonough, Clerk of the Court 
and the Seal thereof, at Chicago, June 24, 1967.

/s /  Joseph J. McDonough 
Clerk
Dep. / s /  Illegible



IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

5

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to wit: on 
August 14th, 1967, the following among other proceed­
ings were had and entered of record in said court which 
proceedings were and are in words and figures following 
to-wit:

Present Honorable Norman A. Korfist, One of the 
judges of the court.

J o h n  J. Stam os  
States Attorney
J oseph  I. W oods 
Sheriff
J oseph  J. M cD onough  
Clerk

No, 67 MC 4-53645 Criminal 

T h e  P eople  of t h e  State  of Illin o is

v.
W illie  E . W illia m s

Now comes EDNA WHITNEY and in the name of the 
People of the State of Illinois, presents to the Court the 
complaint herein under oath, and moves the Court that 
leave be granted to file said complaint, and the Court 
having examined said complaint, and having examined 
under oath, the person presenting the same, and having- 
heard the evidence thereon, and being satisfied that there 
is probable cause for filing the same, it is ordered that 
leave be granted to file said complaint instanter.

It appearing to the Court that the offense described in 
the complaint has been committed and it appearing to 
the Court that the defendant was arrested without proc­
ess and is now here present in open Court, the Court 
takes jurisdiction of the person of said defendant, and 
the Sheriff of this Court is ordered forthwith to take the



6

body of said defendant into his custody and said defend­
ant safely keep so that said Sheriff may have said de­
fendant before the Court to answer to said people for 
and concerning the offense charged in said complaint and 
this order shall be sufficient warrant of said Sheriff for 
so doing.

Bond set at TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,000.00).
It is further ordered by the Court that this cause be and 

the same is hereby postponed to AUGUST 16th, 1967, in 
Branch 11.



7

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to- wit: on 
August 16th, 1967, the following among other proceed­
ings were had and entered of record in said court which 
proceedings were and are in words and figures following 
to-wit:

Present Honorable Harry A. Schrier, One of the Mag­
istrates of the- court.

J o h n  J. Stam os  
States Attorney
J oseph  I. W oods 
Sheriff
J oseph  J. M cD onough  
Clerk

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

No. 67 MC4 53645 Criminal 

T h e  P eople  of th e  State  of Illin ois

v.
W illie  E. W il l ia m s

Now come the people by the State’s Attorney and the 
defendant as well in his own proper person also comes 
and thereupon on motion of the State, it is ordered by the 
Court that this cause be and the same is hereby post­
poned to SEPTEMBER 6th, 1967.



8

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to wit: on 
September 6th, 196!7, the following among other proceed­
ings were had and entered of record in said court which 
proceedings were and are in words and figures following 
to-wit:

Present Honorable Joseph R. Gill, One of the Magis­
trates of the court.

J o h n  J. Stam os  
States Attorney
J oseph  I. W oods 
Sheriff
J oseph  J. M cD onough  
Clerk

No. 67 MC 4 53645 Criminal 

T h e  P eople  of th e  State  of Illin o is

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

v.
W illie  E . W il l ia m s

Now come the people by the State’s Attorney and the 
defendant as well in his own proper person and said de­
fendant being forthwith demanded of and concerning the 
charge alleged against him in the complaint herein how 
he will acquit himself for a plea in that behalf says that 
he is not guilty in manner and form as charged in said 
complaint.

Said defendant being duly advised by the Court as to 
his right to a trial by jury in this cause, elects to waive 
a trial by jury and this cause is by agreement in open 
Court between the parties hereto’, submitted to the Court 
for trial without a jury.

The people being now here represented by the State’s 
Attorney and said defendant being present in his Oiwm 
proper person and the trial of this cause is now here en­



9

tered upon before the Court without a jury and the 
Court, after hearing all the testimony of the witnesses 
and the arguments of counsel, and being fully advised in 
the premises, renders the following finding, to-wit:

“ THE COURT FINDS THE DEFENDANT GUIL­
TY IN MANNER AND FORM AS CHARGED IN 
THE COMPLAINT HEREIN. WHEREFORE IT 
IS ORDERED THAT THE SAME BE ENTERED 
OF RECORD HEREIN” .

The State’s Attorney now here moves the Court for 
final judgment on the finding of guilty herein, said peo­
ple being represented here by the State’s Attorney and 
said defendant being present in his own proper person 
and not saying anything further why the judgment of 
the Court should not; now be pronounced against him on 
the finding of guilty entered in this cause, the Court 
finds that it has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this 
cause and of the parties hereto, and it is considered and 
adjudged by the Court that said defendant is guilty of 
the criminal offense as described in the complaint, on said 
finding of guilty.

It is therefore considered, ordered and adjudged that 
said defendant, because of said finding of guilty, be and 
he is hereby sentenced to confinement in the County Jail 
of Cook County, for the term of ONE (1) YEAR from 
and after the delivery of the body of said defendant to 
the jailer of said County and it is further considered, 
ordered and adjudged that said defendant, because of 
said finding of guilty, be further sentenced to pay to the 
Clerk of this Court, to be by said Clerk disposed of ac­
cording to law, a fine in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED 
DOLLARS ($500.00) and also the costs of this suit 
taxed at FIVE DOLLARS ($5.00) and in default of pay­
ment of said fine, it is ordered that said defendant, after 
the expiration of said term of imprisonment, stand com­
mitted in said County Jail until said fine and costs shall 
have been paid or until said defendant shall have been 
discharged according to law. And the Sheriff of this 
Court is hereby commanded to take the body of said de­
fendant from the bar of this Court and deliver said body



10

to the keeper of said jail, and the keeper of said jail is 
hereby commanded to receive the body of said defendant 
into his custody and confine said body in said County 
Jail in safe and secure custody for and during said term 
as aforesaid, and after the end of said term of imprison­
ment, the keeper of said jail is hereby commanded to con­
tinue to confine the body of said defendant in said County 
Jail in safe and secure custody until said fine shall have 
been paid or until said defendant shall have been dis­
charged according to law, and after the expiration of 
said fixed term of imprisonment as aforesaid and after 
said fine and costs shall have been paid as aforesaid, said 
defendant shall be thereafter discharged.

It is further ordered that execution issue herein against 
said defendant for the amount of said fine.



11

67 MC4-53645

Received Criminal Court Bldg, Nov. 27, 1967 
John J. Stamos, States Attorney

P eople  of t h e  State  of Illin o is

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY
FOURTH MUNICIPAL DISTRICT—

CRIMINAL DIVISION

vs.
W illie  E. W illia m s

N otice  of M otion— Filed November 29, 1967

To: John J. Stamos
State’s Attorney of Cook County 
2600 South California Avenue 
Chicago, Illinois 60608

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Wednesday, Novem­
ber 29, 1967, at 9:30 A.M., or as soon thereafter as coun­
sel can be heard, I shall appear before the Presiding 
Judge of the Fourth Municipal District in Oak Park, 
Illinois, and then and there present the attached Peti­
tion.

JbJ Stanley A. Bass
Attorney For Defendant 
Civil Legal Aid Service 
Cook County Jail 
Chicago, Illinois 60608 
523-0101 ext. 30

Dated: November 27, 1967



12

67 MC4-53645

P eople  of t h e  State  of Illin o is

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY
FOURTH MUNICIPAL DISTRICT—

CRIMINAL DIVISION

vs.
W illie  E . W il l ia m s

P etitio n— Filed November 29, 1967
Defendant, WILLIE E. WILLIAMS, by his attorneys, 

Stanley A. Bass and Melvin B. Goldberg, Civil Legal Aid 
Service, Cook County Jail, respectfully submits his Peti­
tion, pursuant to Section 72 of the Illinois Civil Practice 
Act and Section 180-6 of Chapter 38, 111. Rev. Stat., to 
vacate that portion of the Court’s order of September 6, 
1967, which directs that defendant stand committed to 
Cook County Jail in default of payment of $505 fine and 
costs.

In support of this Petition, defendant states:
1. Defendant WILLIE E. WILLIAMS is an indi­
gent inmate of the Cook County Jail in Chicago, Il­
linois.
2. Defendant has no estate, funds, or valuable prop­
erty whatsoever, and he is represented herein by 
legal aid counsel furnished without cost to him.
3. On August 13, 1967, defendant was arrested for 
petty theft, and on the following day he was brought 
before the Fourth Municipal District of the Circuit 
Court of Cook County for arraignment. Bail was 
set at $2,000. The Court continued the case to Au­
gust 16, 1967, and committed defendant to Cook 
County Jail for failure to provide bail.
4. On August 16, 1967, on motion of the State’s At­
torney, the case was continued to September 6, 1967. 
Defendant remained in custody.
5. On September 6, 1967, defendant was tried by 
the Honorable Joseph R. Gill, sitting without a jury.



13

The Court found defendant guilty as charged of 
petty theft, and sentenced him to one year imprison­
ment in Cook County Jail. The Court further im­
posed a $500 fine and $5 costs, and directed that, in 
default of payment of same, defendant should stand 
committed to jail to satisfy the unpaid fine and costs 
at the rate of $5 per day.
6. Defendant was not represented by counsel at 
trial, and he was financially unable to obtain coun­
sel. The Court did not advise defendant of his right 
to have assistance of counsel at trial, or of his right 
to appointment of counsel, if he is indigent. Defend­
ant did not knowingly and intentionally waive his 
right to assistance of counsel for his defense.
7. At the time of the imposition of sentence, it should 
have been apparent to the Court that defendant was 
financially unable to pay the $505 fine and costs, 
since he was unable to post $200 as 10% bail bond 
deposit, he was unable to earn wages since his in­
carceration on August 13, 1967, and he was finan­
cially unable to hire an attorney.
8. Since September 6, 1967 and continuing through 
the present time, defendant is, and has been, with­
out funds to pay the fine and court costs.
9. Defendant will be able to get a job and earn 
funds to pay the fine and costs, if he is released 
from jail upon expiration of his one year sentence.
10. At all times relevant herein, Chapter 38, Sec­
tion 180-6, 111. Rev. Stat., provided:

Whenever it shall be made satisfactorily to ap­
pear to the court, after all legal means have 
been exhausted, that any person who is confined 
in jail for any fine or costs of prosecution, for 
any criminal offense, hath no estate wherewith 
to pay such fine and costs, or costs only, it shall 
be the duty of the said court to discharge such 
person from further imprisonment for such fine 
and costs, which discharge shall operate as a 
complete release of such fine and costs: Pro-



14

vided, that nothing herein shall authorize any 
person to be discharged from imprisonment be­
fore the expiration of the time for which he 
may be sentenced to be imprisoned, as part of 
his punishment.

11. At all times relevant herein, Article II, Section
12, Illinois Constitution, provided:

No person shall be imprisoned for debt, unless 
upon refusal to deliver up his estate for the 
benefit of his creditors, in such manner as shall 
be prescribed by law; or in cases where there 
is strong presumption of fraud.

12. In addition, imprisonment of an indigent mis­
demeanant in excess, of one years, due to his finan­
cial inability to pay $505 fine and court costs, vio­
lates the Equal Protection and Due Process Glauses 
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States 
Constitution. People v. Saffore, 18 N.Y. 2d 101, 218 
N.E. 2d 686, 271 N.Y.S. 2d 972 (1966) ; Griffin v. 
Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956) ; People ex tel. Herring 
v. Woods, 37 111. 2d 435, 226 N.E. 2d 594 (1967).

WHEREFORE, defendant prays that this Court va­
cate that portion of its order of September 6, 1967, which 
directs that defendant stand committed to Cook County 
Jail in default of payment of $505 fine and costs, and 
grant defendant sufficient time in which to obtain funds 
to pay said fine and costs, and grant such other relief as 
the Court may deem just and appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

/ » /  Stanley A. Bass
Attorney For Defendant 
Civil Legal Aid Service 
Cook County Jail 
Chicago, Illinois 60608 
523-0101 ext. 30

[Duly sworn to by Willie E. Williams jurat omitted 
in printing (all in italics)]



IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF 
COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

15

BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to wit: on 
November 29th, 1967, the following among other proceed­
ings were had and entered of record in said court which 
proceedings were and are in words and figures following 
to-wit:

Present Honorable Joseph R. Gill, One of the Magis­
trates of the court.

J o h n  J. Stam o s  
States Attorney
J oseph  I. W oods 
Bailiff
J oseph  J. M cD onough  
Clerk

No. 67 MC 4 53645 Criminal 

T h e  P eople  of t h e  State  of Illin o is

v.
W illie  E . W il l ia m s

It is ordered by the Court that the petition to vacate 
order of SEPTEMBER 6th, 1967, be and the same is 
hereby denied.



16

67 MC4-53645 
(Maywood)

P eople  of t h e  State  of Illin o is  
vs.

W illie  E . W il l ia m s

N otice  of A ppe a l— Filed November 30, 1967
An appeal is hereby taken to the Illinois Supreme Court 

from the final judgment and order entered in the above 
entitled cause, on November 29, 1967, dismissing a Peti­
tion brought under Section 72 of the Illinois Civil Prac­
tice Act and Section 180-6 of Chapter 38, 111. Rev. St at., 
which sought to vacate portion of order of September 6, 
1967, directing that defendant stand committed to jail 
in default of payment of fine and costs.

W illie  E. W il l ia m s  
No. 413847
2600 South California Avenue 
Chicago, Illinois 60608

By: /s /  Stanley A. Bass 
St a n l e y  A. B ass 
Attorney For Defendant

Civil Legal Aid Service 
Cook County Jail 
Chicago, Illinois 60608 
523-0101 ext. 30

BE IT REMEMBERED, that to-wit on NOVEMBER 
30'TH, 1967, a certain PROOFS OF SERVICE OF 
NOTICE OF APPEAL was filed in the office of the Clerk.

[Omitted in Printing]

BE IT REMEMBERED, that to-wit on DECEMBER 
4TH, 1967, a certain PRAECIPE FOR RECORD AND 
PROOF OF SERVICE [omitted in printing].

[Clerk’s Certificate to foregoing 
transcript omitted in printing.]

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY
FOURTH MUNICIPAL D IST R IC T -

CRIMINAL DIVISION



17

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS

Filed Jan 31, 1968 
Mrs. Earle Benjamin Searcy, Clerk

No. 41131

P eople  of t h e  State  of Ill in o is , p l a in t if f -appellee

vs.
W illie  E. W il l ia m s , d efen d an t -a p p e l l a n t  

N otice

To: Stanley A. Bass, Esq.
Melvin B. Goldberg, Esq.,

Attorneys for Appellant 
Civil Legal Aid Service 
Cook County Jail 
Chicago, Illinois 60608

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Tuesday, January 
30, 1968, at 10:00 a.m., we shall appear before the Hon­
orable Walter V. Schaefer, Justice of the Supreme Court 
of Illinois, in the Chicago Civic Center, Chicago1, Illinois, 
and then and there present the attached Motion and 
Affidavit.

J o h n  J. Stam o s ,
State’s Attorney of Cook County

By: /&/ Oliver D. Ferguson
Assistant State’s Attorney

State of Illinois )
) ss

County of Cook )

Madeline K. Pavletic, being first duly sworn on oath, 
says that she served the above and foregoing Notice,



18

Motion and Affidavit thereto attached by mailing to the 
above-named attorneys on Thursday, January 25, 1968.

/s /  Madeline K. Pavletic
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 25th day of 

January, A.D., 1968.

/&/ Donald E. Erickson 
Notary Public

State of Illinois )
) ss

County of Cook )

A ffidavit

OLIVER D. FERGUSON, being first duly swum on 
oath, deposes and says:

That he is a duly appointed and acting Assistant State’s 
Attorney of Cook County, Illinois, assigned to the Crimi­
nal Appeals Division;

That on September 6, 1967, at a bench trial in the 
Fourth Municipal District of the Circuit Court of Cook 
County, the Honorable Joseph R. Gill, presiding in Cause 
No. 67 MC 4 53645, the appellant was found guilty of 
theft in violation of § 16-1 (a) (1) of the Criminal Code;

That judgment was thereupon entered on the finding 
of guilty and the appellant was sentenced to serve one 
(1) year in the County Jail and further sentenced to pay 
a fine of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.) and costs of Five 
Dollars ($5.00) and, in default of payment of said fine, 
it was ordered that the appellant, after the expiration 
of the term of imprisonment, stand committed in the 
County Jail until said fine and costs shall have been paid



19

or until the appellant shall have been discharged accord­
ing to law;

That on November 29, 1967, the appellant, acting 
through his present counsel, appeared before Magistrate 
Joseph R. Gill in the Fourth Municipal District of the 
Circuit Court of Cook County and presented a petition 
to vacate that portion of the sentence directing the ap­
pellant to stand committed to the County Jail after the 
expiration of his term of imprisonment in default of 
payment of his fine of $500 and $5.00 costs. The peti­
tion sought relief pursuant to § 72 of the Civil Practice 
Act and Ill.Rev.Stat, 1965, ch.38, § 180-6;

That the appellant’s petition was denied on November 
29, 1967, and that the instant appeal was taken from 
the order denying the petition;

That the record on appeal contains no report of pro­
ceedings from the trial on September 6, 1967, and no 
report of the colloquy between the court and counsel on 
November 29, 1967, when the appellant’s petition to va­
cate a portion of the sentence was presented and denied;

That the facts underlying the sentence and the basis 
for the denial of the petition to vacate a portion of the 
sentence are essential to a proper presentation of the 
issues of law purportedly raised on this appeal;

That although the brief for appellant alleges, that the 
sentencing magistrate denied the petition to vacate a 
portion of the sentence for legal insufficiency (Appel­
lant’s Br., p. 3), that portion of the sentence ordering the 
appellant to stand committed to the County Jail in de­
fault of payment, of his fine could not become operative 
until the expiration of his term of imprisonment;

That portion of the order sentencing the appellant 
which the appellant sought to vacate by petition was in­
terlocutory in nature and provisional upon the appel­
lant’s being in default at a future time, namely at the 
time of the expiration of his term of imprisonment ;

That absent some records or report of the colloquy 
between the court and counsel specifically setting forth 
the context in which appellant’s petition was denied on 
November 29, 1967, there are insufficient facts now7 be­



20

fore this Honorable Court to raise for review the issues 
of law set forth in the brief for appellant;

That the rules of this Honorable Court provide that 
where no verbatim transcript is obtainable, the appellant 
may prepare a proposed report of proceedings from the 
best available sources, including recollection. Rule 323(c). 
That rule is specifically applicable to criminal appeals. 
Rule 612(c).

WHEREFORE, your affiant prays that this Honorable 
Court enter an order requiring the appellant to prepare 
a proper record on appeal in conformity with Rule 608 
and Rule 323 (c) of the Rules of this Honorable Court, 
or, in the alternative, to order this appeal stricken for 
failure of the Record adequately to show at this time any 
justiciable controversy.

/s /  Oliver D. Ferguson

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 25th day of 
January, A.D., 1967.

/ s /  Donald E. Erickson 
Notary Public



21

P eople  of t h e  Sta te  of Ill in o is , a ppe lle e

vs.
W illie  E. W il l ia m s , a p p e l l a n t

A ppellee ’s M otion  to R equire  A p p e l l a n t  to P repare  
a  P roper  R ecord for A p p e a l , or , in  t h e  A lte r n a tiv e , 

to Str ik e  t h e  I n s t a n t  A ppeal  as  P rem atu re

Now come the People of the State of Illinois, through 
their attorney, JOHN J. STAMOS, State’s Attorney of 
Cook County (Oliver D. Ferguson), and move this Hon­
orable Court to enter an order requiring the appellant 
to prepared a proper record for appeal in conformity 
with Rules 612 (c) and 323 (c) of the Rules of this Hon­
orable Court, or, in the alternative, to strike the instant 
appeal as premature.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS

No. 41131

J o h n  J. Sta m o s ,
State’s Attorney of Cook County

By: ,/s/ Oliver D. Ferguson 
Oliver  D. F erguson 
Assistant State’s Attorney



22

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS 
IN VACATION AFTER THE JANUARY 1968 TERM

No. 41131

P eople  of t h e  St a te  of  Il lin o is , p l a in t if f -appellee

vs.
W illie  E . W il l ia m s , d efen d an t-a p p e l l a n t

Order— Dated January 30, 1968

This cause coming on to- be heard, upon the Motion of 
the People of the State of Illinois, Appellee,

IT IS ORDERED that a bystander’s bill of exceptions 
covering the proceedings of November 29, 1967, be filed 
by appellant on or before February 15, 1968, and that 
the appellee’s brief be filed within 35 days thereafter.

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of January, 
1968.

ENTER:

/&/ Walter V. Schaefer 
Justice of the 
Supreme Court of Illinois



23

P eople  of t h e  Sta te  of Ill in o is , p l a in t if f -a ppe lle e

vs.
W illie  E. W il l ia m s , d efen d an t -a p p e l l a n t

A p p e l l a n t ’s A n sw e r  to A ppe lle e ’s M otion  to R equire  
A p p e l l a n t  to P repare  a  P roper R ecord for  A ppeal  or 

to St r ik e  A ppe a l— Filed January 31, 1968

Defendant-appellant WILLIE E. WILLIAMS, by his 
attorneys, Stanley A. Bass and Melvin B. Goldberg', Civil 
Legal Aid Service, Cook County Jail, respectfully submits 
his answer to the motion of appellee to require appellant 
to prepare a proper record for appeal, or to strike appeal, 
and in support thereof states as follows:

1. All proceeding in the court below—trial and hear­
ing on post-trial Petition— occurred in Maywood in 
the absence of an official court reporter.
2. At all times relevant herein, Chapter 37, Section 
163 f (3) provided,

The official court reporter shall transcribe and 
furnish an original and copy of the proceedings 
at the trial of any person sentenced to any im­
prisonment where, pursuant to Rule (65-1) of 
the Illinois Supreme Court, an order is or has 
been entered so requiring. (Applicable rule in­
serted)

3. Said statute presupposes the obligation to have an 
official court reporter attend every criminal trial in 
which the defendant is sentenced to imprisonment.
4. Without waiving his objections to the validity and 
propriety of such non-reported proceedings, appellant

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS

No. 41131



24

Respectfully submitted,

agrees to attempt immediately to construct a bystand­
er’s bill of exceptions, in accordance with the provi­
sions of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 323(c).

,/s/ Stanley A. Bass
Attorney For Appellant
St a n l e y  A . B ass 
M e lv in  B. Goldberg

Civil Legal Aid Service 
Cook County Jail 
Chicago, Illinois 60608 
523-0101 ext. 30



25

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF 
COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS 

FOURTH MUNICIPAL D IST R IC T - 
CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 41131
67 MC4-53645 

(Maywood)
P eople  of t h e  State  of Illin o is  

vs.
W illie  E . W il l ia m s

B ystan d er ’s B ill  of E xception s—
Filed February 15, 1968

PROPOSED REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS at the 
hearing of the above entitled cause before the Honorable 
Joseph R. Gill, Judge of the said Court, on the 29th day 
of April, 1967.

APPEARANCES:
H o n . J o h n  J. Stam os  

State’s Attorney, by
M r . E dw ard  R o m a n

Assistant State’s Attorney
appeared on behalf of the People;

M r . St a n l e y  A . B ass ,
appeared on behalf of defendant.

Defendant was not present.

Counsel for defendant summarized the allegations of 
his verified Petition to vacate that portion of the Court’s 
order of September 6, 1967, which directs that defend­
ant stand committed to Cook County Jail in default of 
payment of $505 fine and costs.



26

Counsel for the People orally moved that the Petition 
be denied. No testimony or evidence was received, and 
no court reporter was present.

The Court denied the Petition on its face for the rea­
son that petitioner was not legally entitled at that time 
to the relief requested in the Petition, because he still has 
time to serve on his jail sentence, and when that sentence 
has been served his financial ability to pay a fine might 
not be the same as it is of the date of Sept. 6, 1967.

APPROVED:

,/s/ Joseph R. Gill 
Judge

February 14, 1968



27

Filed May 1, 1968, Clell L. Woods, Clerk

P eople  of t h e  State  of Illin o is , appellee

vs.
W illie  E . W il l ia m s , a p p e l l a n t  

N otice

To: Stanley A. Bass, Esq.
Civil Legal Aid Service 
Cook County Jail 
2600 South California Avenue 
Chicago', Illinois 60608

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Tuesday, April 16, 
1968, at 10:00 a.m., we shall appear before the Honor­
able Walter V. Schaefer, Justice of the Supreme Court 
of Illinois, in the Chicago Civic Center, Chicago', Illinois, 
and then and there present the attached Motion and Affi­
davit.

J o h n  J. Stam o s ,
State’s Attorney of Cook County

By: /&/ Oliver D. Ferguson
Assistant State’s Attorney

State of Illinois )
) ss

County of Cook )

Virginia E. Murphy, being first duly sworn on oath, 
says that she served the above and foregoing Notice, Mo­
tion and Affidavit thereto attached by mailing to the 
above-named attorney on April 15, 1968. That attorney 
for appellant has waived notice of the instant motion.

/&/ Virginia E. Murphy

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 15th day of 
April, A.D., 1968.
/ s /  Donald E. Erickson 

Notary Public

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS

No. 41131



28

State of Illinois )
) ss

County of Cook )

A f f ia n t

OLIVER D. FERGUSON, being first duly sworn on 
oath, deposes and says:

That he is a duly appointed and acting Assistant State’s 
Attorney of Cook County, Illinois, assigned to the Crimi­
nal Appeals Division;

That on September 6, 1967, at a bench trial in the 
Fourth Municipal District of the Circuit Court of Cook 
County, the Honorable Joseph R. Gill, presiding in Cause 
No. 67 MC 4 53645, the appellant was found guilty of 
theft in violation of § 16-1 (a) (1) of the Criminal Code;

That judgment was thereupon entered on the finding 
of guilty and the appellant was sentenced to serve one 
(1) year in the County Jail and further sentenced to pay 
a fine of Five Hundred Dollars ($500) and costs of Five 
Dollars ($5.00) and, in default of payment of said fine, 
it was ordered that the appellant, after the expiration 
of the term of imprisonment, stand committed in the 
County Jail until said fine and costs shall have been paid 
or until the appellant shall have been discharged accord­
ing to law;

That on November 29, 1967, the appellant, acting 
through his present counsel, appeared before Magistrate 
Joseph R. Gill in the Fourth Municipal District of the 
Circuit Court of Cook County and presented a petition to 
vacate that portion of the sentence directing the appel­
lant to stand committed to the County Jail after the ex­
piration of his term of imprisonment in default of pay­
ment of his fine of $500 and $5.00 costs. The petition 
sought relief pursuant to § 72 of the Civil Practice Act 
and 111. Rev. Stat., 1965, ch. 38, § 180-6;

That the appellant’s petition was denied on November 
29, 1967, and that the instant appeal was taken from 
the order denying the petition;

That on February 15, 1968, a Bystander’s Bill of Ex-



29

ceptions was filed in the Office of the Cleric of this Honor­
able Court in which the Magistrate before whom the 
cause was tried stated that he had denied the petition to 
vacate a portion of the sentence because the defendant 
was not legally entitled at that time to the relief re­
quested in the Petition to vacate, and “because he still 
has time to serve on his jail sentence and when that sen­
tence has been, served his financial ability to pay a fine 
might not be the same” as it was on September 6, 1967;

That the issues argued before this Honorable Court at 
the January Term, in People of the State of Illinois ex 
rel. Hosea Jackson versus C. William Ruddell, Superin­
tendent, Municipal House of Correction are still pending 
before the court and the opinion of this court in that case 
could very well settle the point at issue in the instant 
case;

WHEREFORE, the People of the State of Illinois, as 
appellee in the above-styled cause, request an extension 
of time for the filing of a Brief until June 5, 1968.

/s /  Oliver D. Ferguson

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 15th day of 
April, A.D., 1968.

/s /  Donald E. Erickson 
Notary Public



30

People op the State of Illinois, appellee

vs.
W illie E. W illiams, appellant 

Motion

The People of the State of Illinois, by their attorney, 
JOHN J. STAMOS, State’s Attorney of Cook County, 
Illinois, move for the entry of an order extending the 
time for filing the Brief and Argument for the People in 
this cause to and including June 5, 1968, and in support 
of said Motion submit the following Affidavit.

John J. Stamos,
State’s Attorney of Cook County

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS

No. 41131

By: / s /  Oliver D. Ferguson
Assistant State’s. Attorney

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS 

No. 41131
Filed May 1, 1968, Clell L. Woods, Clerk

People op the State op Illinois, plaintiff-appellee
vs.

W illie E. W illiams, depend ant-appellant 

Order

On Motion of the- People of the State of Illinois, it is 
hereby Ordered that the Brief and Argument for the 
People of the State of Illinois be filed to- and including 
May 2, 1968.

ENTER:
/ s/  Thomas E. Kluczy 

Justice o-f the 
Supreme Court of Illinois



31

Received Criminal Court Bldg. May 22, 1968 
John J. Stamos, States Attorney

People of the State of Illinois, plaintiff-appellee

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS

No. 41131

vs.
W illie E. W illiams, defendant-appellant

Motion to Enlarge Defendant-Appellant on His 
Own Recognizance Bond or Reasonable Bond Pending 

Decision Herein

Defendant-appellant, WILLIE WILLIAMS, by his at­
torney, Stanley A. Bass, respectfully moves for an order 
enlarging him on recognizance bond or reasonable bond 
pending the Court’s decision herein, and in support there­
of states as follows:

1. On May 23, 1968, defendant-appellant, WILLIE 
WILLIAMS, will have completed service of his one 
year sentence to imprisonment in Cook County Jail, 
with time off for good conduct and for time spent 
in custody awaiting trial. (See attached jail record.)
2. On May 23, 1968, Willie Williams begins incar­
ceration in Cook County Jail in default of payment 
of his $505 fine and costs, at the rate of $5 per day, 
and he is scheduled to be released on August 31, 
1968. (See attached jail record.)
3. The instant appeal, which was argued orally on 
May 16, 1968, challenges the constitutional validity 
of that portion of the sentencing judge’s order di­
recting that defendant stand committed to jail in de­
fault of payment of $505 fine and costs, which would 
result in the indigent defendant spending more total 
time in jail for petty theft than his more affluent 
counterpart, in violation of equal protection of the



32

laws. People v. Saffore. 18 N.Y. 2d 101. 218 N.E. 
2d 686 (1966).
4, In order to prevent the serious constitutional is­
sue in this case from becoming moot, and in order 
to avoid further incarceration of the defendant— 
which this Court may find to be unlawful, it is ap­
propriate to enlarge the indigent defendant-appel­
lant on his own recognizance bond or reasonable 
bond pending the Court’s decision herein.

WHEREFORE, defendant-appellant prays that the re­
lief requested herein be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

,/s/ Stanley A. Bass 
Stanley A. Bass 
Attorney For Appellant

State of Illinois )
) ss

County of Cook )

STANLEY A. BASS, being first duly sworn on oath, de­
poses and says: I have read the above motion, and know 
the contents thereof to be true and correct to the best of 
my knowledge and belief.

,/s/ Stanley A. Bass 
Affiant

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 22nd day of 
May, 1968.

/ s /  [Illegible]
Notary Public

My commission expires May 1, 1970



33

>RM SO

INDICTMENT N U M BER HOW H E L D BAIL  | C O M M ITTE D  B Y CHARGE Dote Charges Record*

CASE C O N t JZ O O &  ! / f -h /essj — - T H E F T ______1S s s i u s s ’
1-f —j.-a*-*-- - - — — —
i

__  J _  f
- t f __^  1 Z l

■ ! __ !
i 'v . .i i _____j z i i i i o d 4.

T. DATES JUD G E D A T E C T .  D A TES  JUDG E D A T E CT . D A TES  JUD G E D A T E

n
Z . . .  . * ' , V f a £ % ! L - L b \ ' t  2 3 .1 9 .6 8 .'

— f -— "— " ^ j
_

%‘W l^ - O L - ------------ ---- i - i  J ____ r r - r r - A
.

■ .
-

____ fi* ' f *

7 /
5.RRANTS:

'ECIAL ORDERS:





UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
State of Illinois )

) ss.
Supreme Court )

At a Term of the Supreme Court, began and held in 
Springfield, on Monday, the thirteenth day of May in the 
year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixty- 
eight, within and for the State of Illinois.

Present: Roy J. Solfisburg, Jr., Chief Justice 
Justice Walter V. Schaefer 
Justice Byron 0. House 
Justice Thomas E. Kluczynski 
Justice Ray I. Klingbiel 
Justice Robert C. Underwood 
Justice Daniel P. Ward 
W illiam G. Clark, Attorney General 
Robert G. Miley, Marshal 
A ttest: Clell L. Woods, Clerk

BE IT REMEMBERED, that, to-wit: on the 28th day 
of May, A.D. 1968, the same being one of the days of the 
term of Court aforesaid, the following proceedings were, 
by said Court, had and entered of record, to-wit:

No. 41131

People State of Illinois, appellee 
vs.

W illie E. W illiams, appellant

A ppeal from Circuit Court Cook County 
(Municipal Division)

And now, on this day, the Court having duly consid­
ered the motion by appellant that he be admitted to bail, 
and being fully advised of and concerning the premises;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion by ap­
pellant that he be admitted to bail be, and the same is, 
allowed, and bond fixed in the amount of $500.00 to be 
approved by the Warden of the Cook County Jail.

35



36

The People of the State of Illinois, appellee

vs.
W illie E. W illiams, appellant

Opinion— Filed January 29, 1969
Mr. Justice House delivered the opinion of the court:
The sole question raised by this appeal is whether im­

prisonment of an indigent defendant to satisfy his fine 
constitutes a denial of equal protection of the law under 
the rationale of Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 100 L. Ed. 
891, 76 S. Ct. 585.

On August 16, 1967, defendant, Willie E. Williams, 
was convicted of theft of property not from the person 
and not exceeding $150 in value in a bench trial in the 
circuit court of Cook County. The court sentenced him 
to one year imprisonment in the county jail and imposed 
a fine of $500, a maximum sentence for this offense (111. 
Rev. Stat. 1967, ch. 38, par. 16— I), and $5 costs. The 
judgment order provides that in default of payment of 
the fine and costs defendant should stand committed to 
jail to satisfy the fine and costs at the rate of $5 per day 
of imprisonment.

On November 29, 1967, defendant filed a petition un­
der section 72 of the Civil Practice Act, alleging under 
oath that he was indigent at all stages of the proceedings, 
that he was without counsel or funds to hire counsel at 
the trial and that he will be able to get a job and earn 
funds to pay the fine and costs if he is released from jail 
upon expiration of his one-year sentence. He prayed 
that the trial court vacate that portion of the order di­
recting that he stand committed to jail in default of the 
payment of the fine and costs. The court denied the pe­
tition because of its legal insufficiency and defendant ap­
pealed directly to this court alleging that the denial of 
his petition deprived him of equal protection of the law

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
Docket No. 41131— Agenda 24— May, 1968



37

guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment to the Federal 
constitution.

The authority for imprisonment to enforce payment of 
a fine comes from section 1— 7 (k) of the Criminal Code 
of 1961. (111. Rev. Stat, 1967, ch. 38, par. 1— 7 (k ).) This 
section provides, “ Working out Fines. A judgment of a 
fine imposed upon an offender may be enforced in  ̂the 
same manner as a judgment entered in a civil action; 
Provided, however, that in such judgment imposing the 
fine the court may further order that upon non-payment 
of such fine, the offender may be imprisoned until the fine 
is paid, or satisfied at the rate of $5.00 per day of im­
prisonment; Provided, further, however, that no person 
shall be imprisoned under the first proviso hereof for a 
longer period than 6 months.”

The basis of defendant’s equal-protection theory seems 
to find its origin in a dissenting opinion in Wildeblood v. 
United States (D.C. Cir. 1960), 284 F.2d 592. It was 
there stated: “When the person sentenced cannot pay the 
fine and is therefore imprisoned, the constitutional ques­
tion arises. The answer seems clear. The cases on which 
the court [the majority opinion] relies were decided many 
years agn, [Ex parte Jackson, 1877, 96 U.S. 727, 24 L. 
Ed. 877; Bowles v. District of Columbia, 1903, 22 App. 
D.C. 321; Hill v. Wampler, 1936, 298 U.S. 460, 56 S. Ct. 
760, 80 L. Ed. 1283; Yeager v. District of Columbia, D.C. 
Mum App. 1943, 33 A.2d 629,] and the constitutional 
question does not appear to have been raised. More re­
cently, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that ‘in­
vidious discriminations’ in the administration of criminal 
justice are unconstitutional. Griffin v. Illinois, 1956, 351 
U.S. 12, 17, 76 S. Ct, 585, 100 L. Ed. 891; Eskridge v. 
Washington Prison Board, 1958, 357 U.S. 214, 78 S. Ct. 
1061, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1269; Burns v. Ohio, 1959, 360 U.S. 
252, 79 S. Ct. 1164, 3 L. Ed. 2d 1209. Specifically, the 
Court has held that ‘There can be no equal justice where 
the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of 
money he has.’ Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 19, 76 S. 
Ct. 100 L. Ed. 891. Few would care to say there can be 
equal justice where the kind of punishment a man gets de­
pends on the amount of money he has,” (284 F.2d 592,



38

594). The majority in Wildeblood followed cases decided 
prior to Griffin wherein imprisonment for nonpayment of 
a fine was permitted and simply stated, “ We do not think 
these cases are overruled by Griffin v. Illinois * * *.” 284 
F.2d 592, 598.

In United States ex rel. Privitera v. Kross (S.D.N.Y.), 
239 F. Supp. 118, aff’d (2d cir.) 345 F.2d 533, cert. 
denied 382 U.S. 911, 15 L. Ed. 2d 163, 86 S. Ct. 254, the 
issue raised in the Wildeblood dissent was again decided 
adversely to the indigent, defendant. After noting that a 
defendant “has no constitutional right that another de­
fendant, no matter what his economic status, rich or poor, 
receive the same sentence for the same offense,” the court 
stated: “ No different conclusion is required by the line 
of cases beginning with Griffin v. People of State of Illi­
nois. Those decisions making review of criminal convic­
tions available to the indigent have not yet- been construed 
to compel government, State or Federal, to eradicate 
from the administration of criminal justice every disad­
vantage caused by indigence.” (239 F. Supp. 118, 120- 
121.) In support of this statement the court cited “ Nor- 
vell v. State of Illinois, 373 U.S. 420, 83 S. Ct. 1336, 10 
L. Ed, 2d 456 (1963) ; United States ex rel. Marshall v. 
Wilkins, 338 F.2d 404 (2d Cir. 1964) (no absolute right 
to appointment of counsel on habeas corpus petitions) ; 
United States ex rel. Combs v. Denno, 231 F. Supp. 942, 
945 (S.D.N.Y. 1964) ; Mastrian v. Hedman, 326 F.2d 
708 (8th Cir.) cert, denied, 376 U.S. 965, 84 S. Ct, 1128, 
11 L. Ed. 2d 982 (1964) (may impose bail on those with­
out funds) ; Pilkinton v. Circuit Court, 324 F.2d 45 (8th 
Cir. 1963) ; Stern & Gressman, Supreme Court Practice 
219 (3d ed. 1962) (no right to appointment of counsel on 
petition for certiorari).” 239 F. Supp. 118, 121 n. 12.

In view of this holding in Kross which was affirmed by 
the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and to which a, writ 
of certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court, we do not 
feel justified in holding that imprisonment of an indigent 
defendant to satisfy his fine constitutes a denial of equal 
protection of the law under the fourteenth amendment. 
Defendant urges us to follow the reasoning and holding 
of People v. Saffore, 18 N.Y.2d 101, 218 N.E.2d 686. In



39

that case, like this one, defendant was convicted of a, mis­
demeanor and given the maximum, sentence of one year 
of imprisonment and required to pay a fine of $500, the 
fine if not paid, to be served out at the rate of one day’s 
imprisonment for each dollar remaining unpaid. The 
sentencing court knew defendant was without funds or 
property and was unable to pay the fine. The New York 
Court stated, “ We do not hold illegal every judgment 
which condemns a defendant to confinement if he does 
not pay his fine. We do hold that, when payment of a 
fine is impossible, imprisonment to work out the fine, if 
it results in a total imprisonment of more than a year 
for a misdemeanor, is unauthorized by the Code of Crimi­
nal Procedure and violates the defendant’s right to equal 
protection of the law, and the constitutional ban against 
excessive fines.” 18 N.Y.2d 101, 218 N.E.2d 686, 688.

A limitation similar to that used in Saffore was ap­
plied in Sawyer v. District of Columbia (D.C.C.A.), 238 
A.2d 314. was there held that “ in every case in which the 
defendant is indigent, a sentence of imprisonment in de­
fault of payment of a fine which exceeds the maximum 
term of imprisonment which could be imposed under the 
substantive statute as an original sentence is an invalid 
exercise of the court’s discretion for the reason that its 
only conceivable purpose is to impose a longer term of 
punishment than is permitted by law.” (238 A.2d 314, 
318.) This decision was based solely on the trial judge’s 
discretion in enforcing payment of fine.

The one-year limitation applied in Saffore and the 
maximum-term-as-an-original-sentence limitation applied 
in Sawyer were both based on the construction of stat­
utes involved in each case. This court has rejected both 
of these limitations in construing the statutes of this 
State authorizing imprisonment to enforce or satisfy the 
payment of a fine. (Berkenfield v. People, 191 111. 272; 
People v. Jaraslowski, 254 111. 299; People ex rel. Hoyne 
v. Windes, 283 111. 251.) Thus, in Jaraslowski it was 
stated: “ There was no error in the judgment of the court 
in requiring plaintiff in error to work out his fine after 
his term of imprisonment expired, notwithstanding the 
maximum term of imprisonment was imposed.” 254 111.



40

299, 305. Jaraslowski, a pauper, in addition to the fine, 
had received a one-year sentence which was the maxi­
mum term for the offense committed, as in Sawyer, and 
the maximum term for a misdemeanor, as in Saffore, The 
factual situation in Windes was the same and the court 
in following Jaraslowski stated: “ The statute was in­
tended to enable the State to collect in labor fines that 
could not be collected by execution, and applies as well to 
a case where a person is able to pay in labor but not in 
money as: to a case where he is able to pay in money but 
unwilling to do so.”  283 111. 251, 254-255.

The legislature has not acted to change the result 
reached in Jarasloioski or Windes. On the contrary, the 
comments of the Joint Committee to Revise the Illinois 
Criminal Code state with respect to section 1— 7 (k) : “ No 
provision is made for discharge on a pauper’s oath since 
it is considered that on any conviction for a criminal 
offense the intent present is equivalent to the malice re­
quirement in civil cases, in which discharge prior to the 
six months limit may be obtained only upon payment of 
the judgment.” (Committee Comments, S.H.A. ch. 38, 
§ 1— 7, p. 31.) The legislative intent is clear that section 
1— 7 (k) should apply to all defendants, rich or poor, and 
it cannot be construed to accomplish the result reached in 
Saffore or Sawyer.

Defendant has also directed our attention to section 
180— 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (111. Rev. 
Stat. 1967, ch. 38, par. 180— 6.) This section provides: 
“ Whenever it shall be made satisfactorily to appear to 
the court, after all legal means have been exhausted, that 
any person who is confined in jail for any fine or costs or 
prosecution, for any criminal offense, hath no estate 
wherewith to pay such fine and costs, or costs only, it 
shall be the duty of the said court to discharge such per­
son from further imprisonment for such fine and costs, 
which discharge shall operate as a complete release of 
such fine and costs: Provided, that nothing herein shall 
authorize any person to be discharged from imprisonment 
before the expiration of the time for which he may be 
sentenced to be imprisoned, as part of his punishment.” 
He concedes that defendants have not been permitted to



41

be discharged from imprisonment for nonpayment of a 
fine, under this statute, unless they were physically un­
able to work at the institution of confinement or no work 
was provided there for them. (See People v. Jaraslow- 
ski, 254 111. 299; People ex rel. Hoyne v. Windes, 283 
111. 251; People v. Herman, 245 111. App. 94; People v. 
Cary, 245 111. App. 100, and People v. Hedenberg, 21 111. 
App. 2d 504.) But he suggests that we now give the 
statute a liberal construction in order to avoid the con­
stitutional issue of equal protection of the law.

As we have said, there is no denial of equal protection 
of the law when an indigent defendant is imprisoned to 
satisfy payment of the fine. Furthermore, once a statute 
has such a well settled construction over a long period of 
time and the legislature does not amend the statute, it 
would amount to a judicial amendment were we now to 
change our interpretation of it. (Schwarz v. Schwarz, 
27 111.2d 140, 150.) This we cannot do.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit 
court of Cook County is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.



42

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA f

State of Illinois )
) SS.

Supreme Court )

At a Term of the Supreme Court, began and held in 
Springfield, on Monday, the thirteen day of January in the 
year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixty- 
nine, within and for the State of Illinois.

Present: Roy J. Solfisburg, Jr., Chief Justice 
Justice Walter V. Schaefer 
Justice Byron 0. House 
Justice Thomas E. Kluczynski 
Justice Ray I. Klingbiel 
Justice Robert C. Underwood 
Justice Daniel P. Ward 
W illiam J. Scott, A ttorney General 
Robert G. Miley, Marshal 
Attest: Justin Taft, Clerk

Be It Remembered, that, to-wit: on the 29th day of 
January 1969, the same being one of the days of the term 
of Court aforesaid, the following proceedings were, by 
said court, had and entered of record, to-wit:

No. 41131
67 MC4-53645

People State of Illinois, appellee 
vs.

W illie E. W illiams, appellant

A ppeal from Circuit Court Cook County 
(Municipal Division)

And now, on this day, this cause having been argued 
by counsel, and the Court, having diligently examined 
and inspected as well the record and proceedings afore­
said, as matters and things therein assigned for error,



43

and now, being sufficiently advised of and concerning the 
premises for that it appears to the Court now here', that 
neither in the record and proceedings aforesaid, nor in 
the rendition of the judgment aforesaid, is there anything 
erroneous, vicious or defective, and in that record there 
is no error.

THEREFORE, it is considered by the Court that the 
judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook County (Munici­
pal Division) aforesaid, BE AFFIRMED IN ALL 
THINGS AND STAND IN FULL FORCE AND EF­
FECT, notwithstanding the said matter and things there­
in assigned for error.

I, JUSTIN TAFT, Clerk of the Supreme Court of the 
State of Illinois and keeper of the records, files and Seal 
thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true 
copy of the final order of the said Supreme Court in the 
above entitled cause of record in my office.

In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my
name and affixed the Seal of said court this ______  day
of _____________ , 19 ____

Clerk,
Supreme Court of the 
State of Illinois.



44

People of the State of Illinois, plain tiff-appellee

vs.
W illie E. W illiams, defendant-appellant

Notice of Motion

To: Edward V. Hanrahan
State’s Attorney of Cook County 
Chicago' Civic Center 
Room 1500 
Chicago, Illinois

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Tuesday, February 
11, 1969, at 10:00 A.M., I shall appear before a Justice 
of the Illinois Supreme Court, 30th floor, Chicago Civic 
Center, and then and there present the attached motion 
to stay mandate pending appeal to the United States Su­
preme Court.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS

No. 41131

/&/ Stanley A. Bass 
Stanley A. Bass 
Attorney For Appellant
Community Legal Counsel 
116 South Michigan Avenue 
Chicago, Illinois 60603 
726-0157

February 5, 1969



45

Received, Criminal Appeals, Feb. 6, 1969, 500 Civic 
Center, Edward V. Hanrahan, States Attorney

People op the State of Illinois, plaintiff-appellee

vs.
W illie E. W illiams, defendant-appellant

Motion to Stay Mandate Pending Appeal to the 
United States Supreme Court

Defendant-Appellant, WILLIE E. WILLIAMS, by his 
attorney, Stanley A. Bass, respectfully moves, pursuant 
to 111. Sup. Ct, Rule 368(c), to stay the mandate herein 
pending his appeal to the United States Supreme Court. 

In support of this motion, counsel states :
1. Defendant-appellant was ordered released by this 
Court on $500 bond pending appeal herein.
2. On January 29, 1969, this Court affirmed the 
judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook County, deny­
ing defendant’s petition to vacate that portion of the 
sentencing order directing that he stand committed 
to jail in default of payment of $500 fine and $5.00 
costs.
3. In so ruling, this Court declined to adopt- the po­
sition taken by the New York Court of Appeals, in 
People v. Saffore, 18 N.Y. 2d 101, 218 N.E. 2d 686 
(1966), and by the District of Columbia Court of 
Appeals, in Sawyer v. District of Columbia, 238 A. 
2d 314 (1968), holding that sentence disparity based 
upon poverty violates Equal Protection of the Laws.
4. Counsel for defendant-appellant herein is pres­
ently preparing, and will timely file, his notice of 
appeal to the United States Supreme Court, and his 
Jurisdictional Statement. No rehearing will be 
sought in this Court.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS

No. 41131



46

5. Appellant’s constitutional challenge to Chapter 
38, Section 1-7 (K),  111. Rev. Stat., is substantial, 
and his appeal to the United States Supreme Court 
is taken in good faith, and not for the purpose of 
delay.

WHEREFORE, defendant-appellant prays that the 
mandate herein be stayed pending appeal to the United 
States Supreme Court.

Respectfully submitted,

,/s/ Stanley A. Bass 
Stanley A. Bass

Community Legal Counsel 
116 South Michigan Avenue 
Chicago, Illinois 60603 
726-0157

Dated: February 5, 1969

State of Illinois )
) ss

County of Cook }'

STANLEY A. BASS, being first duly sworn on oath, de­
poses and says that he caused the above motion to be pre­
pared, and that he knows the contents thereof to be true 
and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.

/&/ Stanley A. Bass 
Affiant

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 5th day of 
February, 1969.

,/s/ [Illegible]
Notary Public



47

People of the State of Il l i n o i s , p l a i n t i f f -a p p e l l e e

vs.
W illie E. W illiams, defendant-appellant 

Draft Order

This matter comes before the Court on motion of de­
fendant-appellant to stay the mandate herein pending 
appeal to the United States Supreme Court,

And the Court being duly advised in the premises,
WHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the mandate 

herein be stayed pending final disposition of appellant’s 
appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

ENTER:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS

No. 41131

February 11, 1969

/&/ Daniel P. Ward 
Justice



48

Received Criminal Appeals, Feb. 11, 1969, 500 Civic 
Center, Edward V. Hanrahan, States Attorney

People of the State of Illinois, plaintiff-appellee

vs.
W illie E. W illiams, defendant-appellant

Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court 
of the United States

Notice is hereby given that Willie E. Williams, de­
fendant above named, hereby appeals to the Supreme 
Court of the United States from the final judgment of 
this Court, entered on January 29, 1969, affirming the 
final judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illi­
nois. This appeal is taken pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 
§ 1257(2).

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS

No. 41131

/ s /  Stanley A. Bass 
Stanley A. Bass 
Attorney For Defendant- 

Appellant
Community Legal Counsel 
116 South Michigan Avenue 
Chicago, Illinois 60603 
726-0157

February 11, 1969

PROOF OF SERVICE
Received Feb. 11, 1969 

William J. Scott, Attorney General

[Clerk’s Certificate to foregoing 
transcript omitted in printing.]



49

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 
No. 156 Misc., October Term, 1969

W illie E. W illiams, appellant 
v.

Illinois

ON CONSIDERATION of the motion for leave to pro­
ceed herein in forma pauperis,

IT IS ORDERED by this Court that the said motion be, 
and the same is hereby, granted..

January 19, 1970

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 
No. 156 Misc., October Term, 1969

W illie E. W illiams, appellant 
v.

Illinois

APPEAL from the Supreme Court of the State of Illi­
nois.

The statement of jurisdiction in this case having been 
submitted and considered by the Court, probable jurisdic­
tion is noted. The case is transferred to the appellate 
docket as No. 1089, and placed on the summary calendar.

January 19, 1970

•fr U. S . GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE; 1 9 7 0 3 7 5 6 4 4  4 7 6