Criminal Law

Defendant was found guilty of aggravated kidnapping for ransom, aggravated kidnapping while armed with a firearm, and aggravated unlawful restraint and sentenced to a total of 47 years. On direct appeal, the appellate court vacated the conviction for aggravated unlawful conviction and affirmed the remaining convictions and sentences. After filing a pro se post-conviction petition that was summarily dismissed, defendant sought leave to file a successive post-conviction petitioner alleging actual innocence and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on direct appeal. The trial court dismissed the petition at the second stage and defendant appealed. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the evidence presented by defendant was not so conclusive that it would probably lead to a different result on retrial and that defendant did not suffer any prejudice from appellate counsel’s failure to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on direct appeal. (REYES and BURKE, concurring)

Defendant appealed from the dismissal of his pro se petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that his petition raised a sufficient claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present an exculpatory witness. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the witness was previously unknown and did not come forward until four years after the defendant was convicted and that it would be unreasonable for the court to find that counsel was deficient in failing to investigate the witness sooner and that the physical evidence contradicted the witness’ statement. (McBRIDE, concurring and GORDON, dissenting)

Defendant appealed from the denial of permission for leave to file a successive post-conviction petition under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act, arguing that it set forth a colorable claim of actual innocence of his conviction for aggravated arson. The appellate court affirmed, finding that defendant’s claim was not one of actual innocence where it was premised on an argument that his guilty plea did not have a sufficient factual basis and, as a result, was not intelligent and voluntary and, thus, could not overcome the bar against successive post-conviction petitions. (BRENNAN and HUDSON, concurring)

Defendant was found guilty of two counts of criminal sexual assault and sentenced to 11 years. He argued on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to find him guilty, the trial court erred in denying his motion in limine, the statute was facially unconstitutional, and he was entitled to additional pre-sentence custody credit for his time spent on electronic home monitoring. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the evidence was sufficient to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, that the statute in question was constitutional, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the admission of evidence, and that the trial court properly calculated defendant’s pre-sentence custody according to the statute that was in force at the time of sentencing. (FITZGERALD SMITH and ELLIS, concurring)

Defendant was charged with unlawful possession of cannabis in conjunction with a traffic stop. The trial court granted defendant’s motion to suppress evidence, finding that the officer lacked probable cause to search the vehicle. The State appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred when it found that the odor of burnt cannabis emitting from a vehicle was insufficient to support probable cause. The appellate court affirmed, finding that there was no evidence that would lead a reasonable officer to conclude that there was a reasonable probability that the vehicle contained contraband or other evidence of criminal activity giving rise to probable cause to search the vehicle. (DAUGHERITY and HETTEL, concurring)

Defendant was found guilty after a jury trial of armed habitual criminal, unlawful use of a weapon by a felon, and escape. Defendant argued on appeal that the State failed to bring the trial within the 120-window provided under the Speedy Trial Act. Defendant acknowledged on appeal that he forfeited the claim, but the State did not argue that any error was not plain error. The appellate court agreed with the Defendant, finding that his request at the arraignment to proceed “in proper persona” was a request to represent himself and his counsel’s subsequent request for a  continuance could not be attributed to him and the failure to bring him to trial in a timely manner was plain error. (WALKER, concurring and COGHLAN, dissenting)

Defendant was convicted of one count of aggravated criminal sexual abuse and one count of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child and sentenced to a total of 13 years. Defendant appealed, arguing that the State did not prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and that the trial judge erred in his admonishments to the potential jurors. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the victim’s statements were credible and plausible and that the evidence was not closely balanced under a plain error review. (WELCH and CATES, concurring)