Criminal Law

In a consolidated appeal, respondent appealed circuit court judgments revoking the stays of adult sentences in eight separate juvenile jurisdiction proceedings. On appeal, respondent argued that the judgments must be vacated because the hearing on the petitions to revoke was heard in absentia without the court having given the proper admonishments and without sufficient notice. Respondent also contested the evidentiary support for the court’s determination that he committed a new offense warranting the revocation of the stays of his adult sentences. The appellate court vacated five out of the eight cases at issue, finding that there was a lack of proper admonishment. For the remaining cases, the appellate court found respondent was properly admonished and that the trial court’s findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. (LAMPKIN and ROCHFORD, concurring)

Defendant was convicted of 13 counts of first-degree murder, which were merged into an intentional-murder count. Defendant was sentenced to 28 years in prison and the appellate court affirmed his sentence on direct appeal. Defendant then filed a pro se post-conviction petition, which was summarily dismissed as frivolous and patently without merit. Defendant appealed, contending that his petition asserted an arguable claim that his conviction was void because the victim was murdered in Indiana and not in Illinois. The appellate court affirmed, finding that defendant’s criminal jurisdiction claim did not have an arguable basis in law or fact. (BURKE and D.B. WALKER, concurring)

Defendant was charged and convicted of perjury when he attempted to purchase a firearm and falsely certified on a federal form that he did not have any pending felonies when in reality he had two pending felony charges. The issue on appeal was whether a knowingly false statement on a form issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives was sufficient to support a conviction for perjury under Illinois law where the form only required the applicant to “certify” the truth of their responses. The appellate court found that it was not and reversed defendant’s conviction outright, explaining that the language of the form did not require an oath or affirmation as it is narrowly defined under Illinois perjury law. (HARRIS and LANNERD, concurring)

Defendant appealed from the order of the circuit court dismissing his post-conviction petition at the first stage, arguing that he stated the gist of a constitutional argument where he alleged he was sentenced pursuant to a statute that was found to be unconstitutional. The appellate court affirmed, however, finding that in imposing the sentence the circuit court executed a mandate of the supreme court and was, as a result, free from error. (CAVANAGH and LANNERD, concurring)

Respondent was found by a jury to be a sexually violent person under the Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act and was ordered to be committed to institutional care at a secure facility. Respondent appealed arguing that the trial court committed plain error by failing to conduct a proper polling of the jury, trial counsel was ineffective, the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion in limine, the trial court erred in granting the State’s motion to vacate, and the State was judicially estopped from arguing that past non-sexual crimes were evidence of a pattern of behavior. The appellate court affirmed, finding that defendant failed to provide any evidence of juror dissent that would have been uncovered by polling the jury individually, that any ineffective assistance of counsel did not cause prejudice, the trial court correctly denied defendant’s motion in limine, and the trial court did not err in the admission of evidence. (MOORE And BARBERIS, concurring)

Defendant was found guilty of aggravated fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer and two counts of aggravated assault. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly required him to prove his affirmative defense of necessity and that he did not knowingly waive his right to a jury trial on the aggravated assault charges. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the defendant did not show clear or obvious error regarding the affirmative defense where the record showed no evidence supporting either element of the necessity defense. The appellate court also found no error regarding defendant’s waiver of a jury trial. (HARRIS and STEIGMANN, concurring)

Defendant was found guilty of drug-induced homicide and sentenced to 10 years in prison. On appeal, he argued either that the charges should have been dismissed or he should receive a new trial. The appellate court affirmed, finding that evidence supported the finding that defendant delivered the heroin that caused the victim’s death, the grand jury was not misled, the trial court was not ineffective, the testimony of an expert was properly admitted, and defendant’s sentence was not an abuse of discretion. (JORGENSEN and HUDSON, concurring)

Defendant was found guilty of escape for failing to comply with a condition of his electronic home monitoring (EHM) and sentenced to an extended term of 10 years in prison. At issue on appeal was how the terms of the Cook County Sheriff’s Department’s pretrial EHM applied to detainees who reside in multi-unit buildings. The appellate court reversed, finding that because the term “residence” is not defined and the term was ambiguous because it was not clear whether it referred solely to the detainee’s apartment or if it included other spaces within the apartment building the court and, as a result, that the defendant could not have knowingly committed the offense of escape. (MIKVA and ODEN JOHNSON, concurring)

Defendant appealed the trial court’s order denying him leave to file a successive post-conviction petition arguing that he was deprived the reasonable assistance of counsel where counsel failed to amend his successive post-conviction petition to meet the cause and prejudice test and that the trial court erred when it found his actual innocence claim was barred by his guilty plea. The appellate court affirmed, finding that defendant did not suffer from any prejudice resulting from post-conviction counsel’s arguments and that the trial court did not find his actual innocence claim was barred by his guilty plea but rather, the court held that defendant did not provide any newly discovered evidence or analysis to support his claim of actual innocence. (McDADE and PETERSON, concurring)