Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, unlawful use of a weapon by a felon, and being an armed habitual criminal (AHC) and sentenced to 11 years. After hearing testimony of Defendant's mother and "reopening" Krankel hearings, court wanted more evidence as to merits of Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Thus, appointment of new counsel for Defendant was not required at that point. Defendant was not prejudiced by court's denial to appoint counsel for the first 2 hearings. Court made significant effort to explore Defendant's claim and gave him ample opportunity to present factual basis of his claim. Evidence supports court's finding that Defendant possessed a firearm. Defendant's conviction of aggravated robbery cannot be considered a forcible felony conviction under section 2-8 without evidence of the facts underlying his conviction. Court erred in finding Defendant guilty of AHC beyond a reasonable doubt, based only on his conviction of aggravated robbery. (MIKVA and CUNNINGHAM, concurring.)
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Weapons