Criminal Law

Defendant was found guilty of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child and was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment. Defendant appealed alleging that the trial court improperly considered his refusal to make a statement in allocution as an aggravating factor in sentencing and that he was entitled to reversal of his conviction based on the timing of filing of exhibits in the appeal. The appellate court found there was no merit to defendant’s argument that he was entitled to reversal of his conviction because additional exhibits were filed during the pendency of the appeal where he was given the required amount of time to file his brief. The appellate court further found that it was error to consider defendant’s refusal to make a statement in allocution as an aggravating factor, but could not determine the weight the circuit court gave to the defendant’s refusal to make a statement in allocution and, accordingly, vacated his sentenced and remanded for resentencing. (O’BRIEN And DAUGHERITY, concurring)

Defendant appealed trial court denial of his motion to file a pro se successive post-conviction petition, which alleged that his 100-year sentence for charges relating to a shooting death and burglary was a de facto life sentence and violated the Eighth Amendment and proportionate penalties clause because he was 20 years old and intellectually disabled at the time of the offense. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial judge properly considered the applicable factors in determining the appropriate sentence and that defendant had failed to establish a prima facie claim of prejudice as was required to be granted leave to file a successive petition. (GORDON And ELLIS, concurring)

Defendant appealed from his conviction for driving while under the influence alleging that he was denied effective assistance of counsel and that section 11-501(a)(6) of the Illinois Vehicle Code violated his right to due process. In a prior opinion, the appellate court reversed defendant’s conviction by finding that trial court had failed to protect his right to a speedy trial. The State filed a petition for leave to appeal, which was granted, and the Supreme Court reversed the appellate court. The matter was remanded to the appellate court for consideration of the second issue. The appellate court affirmed, finding under the rational basis test that at the time of the offense section 11-501(a)(6) bore a reasonable relationship to the legislative objective of keeping cannabis-impaired drivers off of the road and, as such, that it did not violate defendant’s right to due process. (LYTTON and HOLDRIDGE, concurring)

Defendant was found guilty of two counts of first-degree murder; however, the jury found in response to a special interrogatory submitted for sentence enhancement purposes that the defendant did not discharge the firearm that proximately caused the deaths of the two victims. Defendant appealed arguing that the jury verdicts were inconsistent. Defendant also argued that the trial court did not properly answer questions tendered by the jury during deliberations, did not properly admonish the jury pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 431(b), and that the trial court erred by admitting a recorded phone call under the tacit admission rule. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial finding that the trial court’s failure to answer a jury question regarding a question of law necessitated reversal and remand for a new trial. (REYES and LAMPKIN, concurring)

The circuit court found defendant guilty of methamphetamine-related offenses and sentenced him to concurrent terms of 25 years’ of imprisonment for aggravated participation in manufacturing and 7 years’ imprisonment for unlawful delivery. Defendant appealed alleging numerous errors in the proceedings, including claims related to the chain of custody of evidence, whether there was probable cause for a search of his residence, that it was error for the trial court to watch a video entered into evidence in the presence of counsel but not defendant, whether he was entitled to an entrapment defense, and whether the trial court erred in sentencing. The appellate court affirmed. (HARRIS and HOLDER WHITE, concurring)

Defendant was found guilty of violating a stalking no-contact order. He appealed, arguing that the trial court erred when it allowed the State to introduce evidence of defendant’s guilt of offenses not contemplated by the charging instrument. The appellate court reversed, finding that the information did not properly inform defendant of the charges against him and that the trial court improperly allowed admission of other crimes evidence that was highly prejudicial. The appellate court reversed the conviction outright instead of remanding for a new trial because defendant had already completed the term of conditional discharge imposed by the court and had been subject to two trials, both of which resulted in an overturned conviction, for charges related to a non-violent misdemeanor. (LYTTON and SCHMIDT, concurring)

Defendant appealed his conviction for unlawful use of a weapon by a felon, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to quash and suppress because there were no reasonable grounds, exigent circumstances, or good faith reason to support the arrest and search of defendant absent an arrest warrant. Defendant also argued that the Peoria Police Department’s use of an investigative alert violates the separation of powers doctrine. The appellate court affirmed finding that the use of alerts to disseminate information among officers does not conflict with the authority of the courts and that the investigative alert provided reasonable grounds to make a warrantless arrest. (DAUGHERITY and LYTTON, concurring)

Defendant was found guilty of one count of first-degree murder and two counts of armed robbery. Defendant appealed arguing the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress custodial statements, when it allowed the State to use testimony from a peer-reviewing forensic scientists rather than offering testimony from the individual who actually tested the evidence, and that the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing and rebuttal. The appellate court affirmed finding that Defendant’s invocation of his Miranda rights was not clear and unambiguous and that even if the testimony of the expert witness violated defendant’s right to confrontation it did not satisfy the requirements of plain error review because the evidence was not closely balanced. The appellate court also found no evidence of prosecutorial misconduct. (McBRIDE and BURKE, concurring)