delivered the opinion of the court:
In Nоvember, 1936, Frank Stacey, herein referred to as defendant, entered a plea of guilty in the circuit court of Macon county to an indictment, containing one count, which, in apt language, charged defendant, Clyde McCullom and Edwin Mаrtin Crise, with stealing a motor vehicle of the value of $150, the property of one T. W. Timm. The defendant was committed to the Illinois State Penitentiary for an indeterminate period.
Defendant prosecutes this writ of error to correсt alleged errors in the judgment and presents the case on the common lаw record. He contends the indictment charged ' him with having committed the crime of grand larceny and that the judgment does not identify it as a conviction for that offense. The People urge that the prosecution and conviction were based upon the violation of section 168a of division 1 of the Criminal Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1939, chap. 38, par. 388a) which provides that for the theft of a motor vеhicle the penalty shall be one to twenty years in the penitentiary.
The larceny of a motor vehicle is a substantive offense, separate and distinct from grand larceny. (People v. Crane,
The indictment charged the defendant with having stolen a motor vehicle of the value of $150. Defendant’s general plea of guilty was an admission that he had stolen a motor vеhicle of the value stated. The court accepted the plea and it is stated in the judgment that the value of the property stolen is fixed at $150. The judgment does not recite that the subject of the theft was a motor vehicle. Thе allegation in the indictment of the value, and the fact that there was a judiсial determination fixing the value, which is incorporated in the judgment, clearly еstablishes the conviction was for grand larceny. (People v. Crane, supra.) The judgment committed the defendant to the Illinois State Penitentiary for an indeterminate period and until discharged according to law. 1 The indeterminate period stated in the judgment would be the indeterminate period provided by statute for the offense of which the defendant was convicted.
The warrant of commitment is set forth in full in defendant’s brief but it is not a part of the common law record. It provides that defendant shall be committed to the Illinois State Penitentiary for a period of one to twenty years. The People, to support their theory, incorporated in the additional abstract the minutes and memorаndum kept by the court reporter at the time the defendant was sentencеd. These are not a part of the record and would not furnish the basis for a nunс pro tunc order amending the record if such were necessary. (Hubbard v. Peоple,
The judgment of the circuit court of Macon county is affirmed.
, Judgment affirmed.