Court Opinion

ID: 9527207
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:28:26.981655+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:38.462358
License: Public Domain

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE CRAVEN dissenting: The defendant asserts that the indictment involved in this case is fatally defective and void. The defendant did enter a plea of guilty to that indictment. He was given probation and at a subsequent time, probation was revoked. The majority opinion holds that the validity of the indictment is not now subject to review in this proceeding — a direct appeal from the revocation of probation. I respectfully disagree. A void indictment confers no jurisdiction upon the court. The defendant cannot confer jurisdiction by waiver or by consent. (People v. Stewart, 3 Ill.App.3d 699, 279 N.E.2d 53; People v. Powell, 61 Ill.App.2d 238, 209 N.E.2d 345.) Thus, if the indictment in this case is void as the defendant contends, the trial court had no jurisdiction to place the defendant upon probation nor did it have jurisdiction to revoke that probation and impose sentence. Want of jurisdiction can be raised at any time. It seems to me to be burying one’s head in judicial sand to say that the defendant has no remedy in this court at this time and must go back to the circuit court and seek either habeas corpus or post-conviction or some other unnamed remedy to have the validity of the indictment determined. While I agree that a failure to take a direct appeal from the conviction constitutes a waiver of review of issues that might have been subject to such direct appeal, it does not constitute a waiver of the issue of jurisdiction. In substance, the majority opinion seems to hold that while the defendant may be wrongfully incarcerated, he is not able to raise that issue in this proceeding and he should pursue a different remedy. Inasmuch as the issue he seeks to tender is one of jurisdiction, it should, in my opinion, be reached upon this appeal. To hold otherwise is to reactivate a procedural merry-go-round. See Marino v. Ragen, 332 U.S. 561, 570, 92 L.Ed. 170, 68 S.Ct. 240 (concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Rutledge).