Criminal Law

Defendant appealed from the circuit court’s dismissal of his pro se petition for relief from judgment filed under section 2-1401 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On appeal, defendant argued, for the first time, that his conviction for unlawful use or possession of a weapon by a felon is void because it is facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The appellate court found that the UUWF statute is constitutional because it comports with the longstanding tradition of disarming individuals based on criminal conduct. (FITZGERALD SMITH and COBBS, concurring)

Defendant was charged with numerous felony offenses related to multiple shooting incidents. The State appealed from a trial court order granting defendant’s motion to suppress evidence resulting from the execution of a search warrant for the content of defendant’s cell phone records and denying its motion to reconsider. The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part, finding that while there was probable cause to search the records relating to one of the shootings, there was no probable cause or exception that would apply to the second shooting. The appellate court remanded for the trial court to determine what evidence related to each shooting and to suppress only that evidence where probable cause did not exist. (PETERSON and ANDERSON, concurring)

Defendant was found guilty of aggravated driving under the influence and reckless homicide and was sentenced to 14 years in prison. On appeal, defendant argued that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel where his trial attorney failed to produce evidence relevant to the youth-based factors in mitigation and failed to object to unauthorized victim impact evidence. The appellate court agreed and remanded for re-sentencing. (DOHERTY and LANNERD, concurring)

Defendant was convicted of eavesdropping and was sentenced to 30 months of probation. On direct appeal, he argued that he was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because the recording was unintelligible and there was no evidence that he knowingly and intentionally used the eavesdropping device and that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to perfect the impeachment of the complaining witness. The appellate court affirmed, explaining that it disagreed with the trial court’s conclusion that the recording was unintelligible because it contained discernible excerpts and that entire statements and not just isolated words could be understood. The appellate court further held that the quality of a recording is legally irrelevant to guilt under the statute. The appellate court also found that defendant could not establish prejudice in his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. (BIRKETT and MULLEN, concurring)

Defendant was convicted of aggravated domestic battery and was sentenced to six years in prison. On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court erred in refusing him sentencing credit for the time he spent on electronic home monitoring while he was released on bond. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court did not misapply applicable statutory language or case precedent during sentencing. (JORGENSEN and SCHOSTOK, concurring)