The following decisions illustrate the care with which federal courts should investigate a claim that a person has been convicted while insane and without counsel: Ashley v. Pescor, 8 Cir., 147 F.2d 318; Kuczynski v. United States, 7 Cir., 149 F.2d 478; Brewer v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 163 F.2d 341; Moss v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 167 F.2d 683; cf. Phyle v. Duffy, 334 U.S. 431, 68 S.Ct. 1131, 92 L.Ed. 1494; Smith v. Baldi, 344 U.S. 561, 73 S.Ct. 391. Among other decisions see Jablonski v. People, 330 Ill. App. 422, 71 N.E.2d 361; Evans v. United States, Mun.Ct.App.D.C., 83 A.2d 876. In Vonderschmidt v. State, 226 Ind. 439, 81 N.E.2d 782, the Fifth headnote accurately states the holding of the Supreme Court of Indiana:
This motion of the State was granted by the criminal court and upon appeal to the Appellate Court for the First District the judgment was reversed. ( Jablonski v. People, 330 Ill. App. 422.) It was determined by that court that there was merit in Jablonski's petition if it was capable of proof, and the cause was therefore remanded for further proceedings, ordering the State to plead and to proceed to trial upon the issues made by such pleadings.
Based on the allegation that Miller was adjudged a mentally ill person by the county court of Pulaski County on March 20, 1948, the contention is made that, by reason of Miller's prior adjudication and commitment to a mental hospital, the circuit court of Johnson County had no jurisdiction over Miller on April 3, 1948, and, in consequence, the judgment of conviction is void. While People v. Varecha, 353 Ill. 52 (writ of error,) People v. Maynard, 347 Ill. 422 (writ of error), and Jablonski v. People, 330 Ill. App. 422 ( coram nobis,) are cited in support of the contention urged, principal reliance is placed on People ex rel. Wiseman on behalf of Willis v. Nierstheimer, 401 Ill. 260, an original habeas corpus proceeding brought in this court. In the case last cited, Willis, within one year prior to his conviction of murder upon a plea of guilty, had been adjudged a feeble-minded person, and the court adjudging him feeble-minded retained jurisdiction of his person.
" In a recent case (Jablonski v. People, 330 Ill. App. 422,) Casimer Jablonski instituted a proceeding in the criminal court of Cook County in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis to set aside his conviction of armed robbery. His petition, filed on February 13, 1946, by his "sister and next friend," alleged that, on December 7, 1928, the municipal court of Chicago decreed him to be a feeble-minded person, ordered him committed to a colony for feebleminded persons to which he was admitted on December 14, 1928; that, on June 15, 1929, he escaped and that, on December 28, 1931, he was arrested, and thereafter indicted and tried for robbery while armed; that, on the day last named, he had not, and has never, been judicially restored to reason; that, when he pleaded to the indictment, he was incapable of mentally doing so, and that his disability was not called to the attention of the court.
(Ill Rev Stats 1967, c 110, par 72(2); Brockmeyer v. Duncan, supra, 505.) In Anderson v. Steger, 173 Ill. 112, 117, 118, 50 N.E. 665 (1898); Jablonski v. People, 330 Ill. App. 422, 425, 71 N.E.2d 361 (1947); and in People v. Nakielny, 279 Ill. App. 387, 395-397 incl. (1935), the court held that a writ of error or writ of error coram nobis can be brought only by a person who was a party or privy to the record, or was injured by the judgment and who will derive benefit from its reversal, or who is competent to release error. [3] The ancient common-law writ of error coram nobis was used to bring to the attention of the court that entered the judgment, matters of fact which would have prevented its rendition had the true facts been known when the judgment was entered.