Criminal Law

Defendant was found guilty of two counts of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon and one count of unlawful use of a weapon. Defendant alleged on appeal, among other things, that his convictions violated the one-act, one-crime rule. The appellate court affirmed the jury’s findings of guilt but reversed defendant’s convictions for all three offenses on the basis that a defendant cannot be convicted of multiple crimes relating to the use of a firearm when only one firearm was involved. Appellate court remanded to the trial court to merge the three offenses into the most serious one. (GORDON and MCBRIDE, concurring)

Defendant, who was 16 years old at the time of the offense, was convicted of first-degree murder and two counts of attempted murder and was sentenced to 60 years of imprisonment. The trial court denied defendant’s leave to file a successive postconviction proceeding challenging his sentence and defendant appealed. In a prior unpublished order, the appellate court granted defendant a new sentencing hearing, but the order was vacated by the Supreme Court to consider the impact of People v. Dorsey. After taking Dorsey into account, the appellate court reversed and remanded for further postconviction proceedings finding that defendant had met the “very low bar” for filing a successive postconviction petition. (REYES and MARTIN, concurring)

Defendant was found guilty of first-degree murder for the shooting death of a pregnant woman, which led both to her death and to the death of her unborn child. He was sentenced to two concurrent terms of natural life imprisonment. Defendant appealed his sentence, arguing that the trial court erred in finding he was subject to mandatory natural life sentencing for the death of more than one victim because the death of the unborn child was not a "murder" and the unborn child was not a "victim" as those terms are defined in the relevant statutes. The appellate court affirmed, finding the plain language of the statutes requires that a defendant who is convicted both of first-degree murder and intentional homicide of an unborn child is required to be sentenced to a term of natural life imprisonment. (GORDON and MCBRIDE, concurring)

Defendant was found unfit to stand trial and appealed the trial court finding that there was a substantial probability that he would be restored to fitness within one year. Appellate court reversed and remanded finding the trial court’s determination was against the manifest weight of the evidence because it was based on “scant and conclusory evidence.” (HUTCHINSON and BIRKETT, concurring)

Co-defendants were arrested as a result of a traffic stop and filed a joint motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence. The trial court denied the motion and defendants were both found guilty at bench trials. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s denial of the motion to quash and reversed defendants’ convictions outright, finding that the defendant driver was not statutorily required to use a turn signal when parking next to a curb and, as a result, there was no traffic violation and no basis for the initial stop leading to the arrest. (DAUGHERITY and HAUPTMAN, concurring)

Defendant appealed from a circuit court order dismissing his successive postconviction petition, arguing that he made a substantial showing that the State knowingly used perjured testimony to convict him of multiple counts of first-degree murder. The appellate court affirmed, finding the information contained in the affidavits offered in support of defendant’s successive postconviction petition was not sufficiently different from the trial evidence so as to create the reasonable likelihood of a different outcome. (PIERCE and ODEN JOHNSON, concurring).

Defendant, who was 17 years old at the time of the offense, was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to 60 years in prison. In a prior appeal,  the appellate court affirmed his conviction and sentence, but remanded for a hearing on whether defendant should be required to register under the Sex Offender Registration Act. While the case was pending, the Supreme Court issued a supervisory order instructing the appellate court to vacate its order and consider whether defendant’s sentence constituted a de facto life sentence in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Pursuant to the supervisory order, the  appellate court affirmed defendant’s conviction but vacated his sentence on the grounds that it constituted a de facto life sentence. The court remanded for a new sentencing hearing. (WELCH and WHARTON, concurring).