Criminal Law

Respondent appealed his conviction of two counts of aggravated sexual assault arguing he was denied effective assistance of counsel and that the evidence was insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Respondent requested remand to the trial court to hold a hearing on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The appellate court found the appellate record did not support his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and that the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction. The court affirmed the judgment but suggested that Supreme Court Rule 383 might provide respondent with the relief requested regarding his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. (TURNER and HOLDER WHITE, concurring)

Case of first impression where defendant appealed revocation of probation and resulting sentence of five years’ imprisonment alleging the trial court erred when it failed to advise defendant, who was sentenced in absentia, of his potential to elect probation and treatment under the Substance Use Disorder Act. Appellate court noted a trial court’s failure to advise a defendant of the possibility of electing probation and treatment under the Act, where the court has reason to believe that the defendant suffers from a substance use disorder, generally will result in reversal of the trial court’s order. The appellate court further found that the Act does not require a trial court to advise an absent defendant of the possibility of electing probation and treatment and held that the trial court did not err. (MCLAREN and HUTCHINSON, concurring)

Defendant convicted of residential burglary following a bench trial. Appellate court reversed finding the evidence supporting the conviction was insufficient where the only evidence was a single fingerprint found on an item in the victim’s apartment. Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the trial court and reversed the appellate court, finding that the evidence was not so unreasonable, improbable, or unsatisfactory as to create a reasonable doubt of defendant’s guilt. (ANNE M. BURKE, GARMAN, NEVILLE, MICHAEL J. BURKE, OVERSTREET, and CARTER, concurring)

Defendant pled guilty to one count of aggravated driving under the influence and was sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment. Trial court denied defendant’s motion to reconsider sentence and defendant appealed. Appellate court affirmed. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed, finding that defense counsel was required to strictly comply with Rule 604(d) and did not do so when he failed to state that he consulted with defendant regarding defendant's contentions of error with respect to entry of the guilty plea. In doing so, the court overruled People v. Peltz, 2019 IL App (2d) 170465. (ANNE M. BURKE, GARMAN, THEIS, MICHAEL J. BURKE, OVERSTREET, and CARTER, concurring)

Defendant argued on appeal that prosecution’s comments during rebuttal closing arguments constituted reversible error because they misrepresented the evidence and shifted the burden of proof. Defendant alternatively argued that defense counsel’s failure to object to the State’s rebuttal denied him of the effective assistance of counsel. Appellate court affirmed on the basis that counsel’s rebuttal constituted general knowledge that did not require an evidentiary foundation. The Illinois Supreme Court declined to adopt the rationale of the appellate court but affirmed on the basis that the State’s rebuttal argument did not constitute error. (ANNE M. BURKE, GARMAN, THEIS, NEVILLE, MICHAEL J. BURKE and OVERSTREET, concurring)

Respondent was adjudicated a delinquent minor under the Juvenile Court Act after he was found guilty of 10 counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault. He appealed, arguing the circuit court erred when it failed to conduct an inquiry into his pro se claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The appellate court affirmed, finding that while respondent was entitled to a Krankel hearing he did not make statements sufficient to trigger an inquiry. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, finding that juveniles in delinquency proceedings are entitled to a preliminary Krankel inquiry regardless of whether counsel is retained or appointed, and that respondent made statements sufficient to give court notice of his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. (ANNE M. BURKE, GARMAN, MICHAEL J. BURKE, OVERSTREET, and CARTER, concurring.)