Criminal Law

Defendant, age 18 at time of offense, was convicted, after jury trial, of attempted murder and aggravated battery with a firearm and sentenced to 15 years plus a mandatory 25-year firearm enhancement. Only natural or de facto life sentences require consideration of youth and its attendant characteristics. As Defendant did not receive the most severe penalty possible, the procedural protections under Miller v. Alabama were not required. The sentence was not "cruel, degrading, or so wholly disproportionate to the offense as to shock the moral sense of the community. Because Defendant did not state the gist of a constitutional claim, summary dismissal of his 1st stage postconviction petition was proper. (HOWSE and LAVIN, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of 1st degree murder. Defendant raised an arguable claim, in his postconviction petition, that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate or call an expert witness to opine on the weaknesses in eyewitness testimony that would not be apparent from cross-examination. It is arguable that an expert on eyewitness identifications could have undermined the credibility of the six eyewitnesses to the extent that a reasonable probability exists for a different outcome. (PUCINSKI and WALKER, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of possession of cocaine. Police saw a single attempted transfer of a small unidentified object in a high crime area, where police scared one man off, and Defendant appeared to hide something. Although the observations gave police grounds for a Terry stop, they did not have probable cause to search for narcotics. As police lacked probable cause to search Defendant, court should have granted Defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized from him. Without that evidence, State lacks evidence needed to convict. (HYMAN and COGHLAN, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of 1st degree murder and 4 counts of attempted 1st degree murder and sentenced to total 119 years. A previous jury trial occurred in 2017, but mistrial was declared when jury could not reach a unanimous verdict.  There is not a reasonable probability that impeaching witness with transcripts of his testimony in 1st trial would have changed outcome of this trial. Court did not commit reversible error by not admitting evidence of the earlier shooting in this trial. The court did not categorically exclude such evidence. Even if such evidence was relevant to show that eyewitnesses had a motive to misidentify him as one of the shooters, evidence would have also strengthened the State's case by providing a more plausible motive for Defendant to commit the shootings. Such evidence was unlikely to change outcome of trial and excluding it did not contributed to Defendant's conviction. (PIERCE and ODEN JOHNSON, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of unlawful use of a weapon by a felon (UUWF). Second degree murder is not a qualifying predicate offense to render a person convicted of UUWF subject to the elevated sentencing guidelines created by the Safe Neighborhoods Reform Act. Court's misapplication of law to determine the applicable sentencing range is plain error because it affects a defendant's fundamental right to liberty.  That occurred in this case, and thus sentence is vacated, and case remanded for resentencing. (REYES and LAMPKIN, concurring.)

Defendant entered a nonnegotiated guilty plea to 1 count of unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver 1 gram or more but less than 15 grams of heroin. Court found that it should treat Defendant's federal convictions as equivalent to at least Class 2 felonies, and thus as predicate felonies for Class X sentencing, and imposed sentence of 8 1/2 years. Defense counsel timely filed motion to reconsider sentence but did not file a Rule 604(d) certificate. A remand for compliance with Rule 604(d) is required. Appeal is limited to ensuring compliance with Rule 604(d), and sentence remains in place during remand. Defendant may file a motion to withdraw his plea if he chooses. If Defendant wishes to file a new motion to reconsider the sentence, circuit court is directed to vacate its ruling on the original motion and allow him to do so, and court should follow principles of section 5-5-4(a). (BRIDGES and McLAREN, concurring.)

 Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of 2 counts of criminal sexual assault. Although court erred in permitting State to provide input as to merits of his motion prior to court making a cause and prejudice determination, court did not err in denying Defendant's motion for leave to file successive postconviction petition. Defendant's allegations of cause are largely conclusory and supported solely by Defendant's own affidavits, and his proposed claims do not meet prejudice standard. No ineffective assistance of counsel as to failing to request lesser included offense jury instruction, raising a consent defense, and arguing that victim did not understand the nature of the act; each claim is attributable to trial strategy. (WRIGHT, concurring; McDADE, dissenting.)