Case Name: The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. Ira Campbell, Plaintiff in Error
Court: Illinois Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1910-10-28
Citations: 246 Ill. 432
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. Ira Campbell, Plaintiff in Error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Reports
Volume: 246
Pages: 432–433

Head Matter:
The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. Ira Campbell, Plaintiff in Error.
Opinion filed October 28, 1910.
1. Criminal law—Parole law applies to a case where punishment may be imprisonment for life. The Parole law by its express terms extends to all crimes but the four therein specially excepted, and applies to the crime - of robbery 'while armed with a dangerous weapon, with intent, if resisted, to kill or maim the victim, even though the maximum punishment therefor is life imprisonment.
2. Same—sentence under the Parole law may extend to limit of life. The sentence, under the Parole law, for a “term of years not to exceed the maximum term fixed by the statute” is for a term extending to the limit of life, provided the maximum punishment fixed by the statute is life imprisonment.
3. Same-—effect of fact that the Parole law preserves the allowance of good time. The fact that the Parole law preserves the allowance of good time, as provided by law, is not inconsistent with its application to sentences for life imprisonment, as no allowance-of good time is provided by law in such cases.
Writ of Error to the Criminal Court of Cook county; the Hon. Albert C. Barnes, Judge, presiding.
Louis Greenberg, for plaintiff in error.
W. H. Stead, Attorney General, John E. W. Way-man, State’s Attorney,. and Joel C. Eitch, (Frederick Burnham, of counsel,) for the People.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Dunn
delivered • the opinion of the'court-:
The plaintiff in error was convicted of the crime of robbery while armed with a dangerous weapon, with intent, if resisted, to kill or maim his victim. The penalty fixed by the statute is imprisonment in the penitentiary for any term of years or for life, and the plaintiff in error was sentenced to the penitentiary "for a term of years not to exceed the maximum term fixed by the statute." It is contended that the Parole law does not apply to cases where the punishment may be life imprisonment, and that the jury should have fixed the term of imprisonment. The Parole law, by its express terms, extends to all crimes but the four specially excepted, of which robbery is not'one. The maximum punishment of robbery under the circumstances attending the crime of which the plaintiff in error was convicted is imprisonment for life, which is greater than any term of years. The sentence for a "term of years not to exceed the maximum term fixed by the statute" is for a term extending to the limit of life. The fact that the Parole law preserves the allowance of good time, as provided by law, is not inconsistent with its application to sentences of life imprisonment. No allowance of good time is provided by law in such cases.
The Parole law has been recently held to be a constitutional enactment and a sentence under it sustained against constitutional and legal objections in People v. Joyce, (ante, p. 124.)
The judgment will be affirmed.
Judgmmt añrmed_