Case Name: The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error vs. Walter Jedyenak, Plaintiff in Error
Court: Illinois Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1945-05-23
Citations: 390 Ill. 402
Docket Number: No. 28552
Parties: The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error vs. Walter Jedyenak, Plaintiff in Error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Reports
Volume: 390
Pages: 402–403

Head Matter:
(No. 28552.
The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error vs. Walter Jedyenak, Plaintiff in Error.
Opinion filed May 23, 1945.
Walter Jedyenak, pro se.
George F. Barrett, Attorney General, and William J. Tuohy, State’s Attorney, of Chicago, (Edward E. Wilson, John T. Gallagher, Melvin S. Rembe, and Joseph A. Pope, all of Chicago, of counsel,) for the People.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Stone
delivered the opinion of the court:
This is a writ of error to secure reversal of a judgment of the criminal court of Cook county entered pursuant to the mandate of this court. (People v. Panczko et al., 381 Ill. 625.) Plaintiff in error contends he .is entitled to be resentenced under the Parole Act as amended in 1943.
The facts of this case are the same as those in People v. Panczko, ante, p. 398, decided at this term. The questions raised are the same. Both plaintiff in error here and Panczko were tried, convicted and sentenced at the same trial and on the same charge of burglary. The causes were sent back in both cases for resentence under the holding in People v. Montana, 380 Ill. 596. Plaintiff in error concedes that he was resentenced in conformity with the statute in force at the time of the original sentence but insists he is entitled to the benefit of the 1943 amendment to the Parole Act, (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1943, chap. 38, par. 802,) which provides that the trial court, in im posing sentence, shall fix a minimum and maximum sentence to be served by the person convicted of a crime coming within the provision of the act.
As questions raised here are decided in People v. Panczko, ante, p. 398, that ruling is controlling here. It is not necessary to enter into a rediscussion of them. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.