Criminal Law

Defendant, age 18 and 11 days at time of offense, was convicted after jury trial of 1st degree murder and sentenced to 45 years to be served at 100% in Illinois Department of Corrections. Defendant's postconviction petition, claiming that it is a de facto life sentence that violates proportionate penalties clause as applied to him, meets the very low threshold required for filing a successive petition. Court found that Defendant was not the main "motivating" actor behind this offense, and did not find that Defendant had no potential for rehabilitation, and was potentially subject to peer pressure of gang of which he was a member since age 12. Remanded for resentencing. (REYES, concurring; MARTIN, dissenting.)

Defendant was convicted, after joint jury trial with codefendant, of 2 counts of attempted 1st degree murder and 2 counts of aggravated battery with a firearm. Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting into evidence a physical copy of screenshot of victim's phone which contained Twitter post laughing at incident and suggesting that he was still going to try to kill her and the other victim. No deficient performance in counsel's failure to object and move for mistrial based on codefendant's counsel's comments, as it was reasonable to forecast for jury the defense strategy and remind them of State's burden to prove his guilt and defense's right to not present any evidence, and was consistent with defense theory of misidentification. Counsel's strategy was reasonable and did not prejudice Defendant. (HOWSE and ELLIS, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of 1st degree murder and home invasion. Court properly dismissed Defendant's postconviction petition at the 2nd stage. Postconviction counsel engaged in communication with Defendant sufficient to satisfy Rule 651(c), keeping Defendant apprised of status and requested missing affidavits to allow for a full investigation. Statements in witness' affidavit are positively rebutted by the record; and affiant never states that he was willing to testify as to his recanted statement. This and another witness' affidavit are not of such conclusive character as would probably change result on retrial. Defendant's claim of actual innocence was properly dismissed at 2nd stage.Defendant failed to show prejudice by trial counsel's failure to object to ASA's rebuttal testimony such that result of trial would have been different; and he cannot show prejudice based on appellate counsel's failure to raise a nonmeritorious issue. (HOWSE and BURKE, concurring.)

Court violated Defendant's due process rights by failing to properly admonish him per Rule 402A before accepting his admissions to violations of probation. Court failed to inform Defendant of the sentencing range he faced for the underlying narcotics charge or to tell him that an additional 2 years of Mandatory supervised release (MSR) would be imposed on the 10-year prison term he agreed to. Judgment vacated and remanded with directions to allow Defendant either to withdraw his admissions to violations of probation or to accept a reduced sentence of 8 years and 2 years MSR. (CONNORS and ODEN JOHNSON, concurring.)

Defendant, age 19 at time of offense, was convicted, after jury trial, of 1st degree murder (under an accountability theory), and sentenced to total 50 years. The shooter was acquitted by a separate jury. Defendant had lived in 30 to 40 different homes and attended 10 different schools. In considering factors in aggravation and mitigation, court acknowledged that Defendant's home life was "a nightmare".  The facts of the offense did not indicate irretrievable depravity. Defendant did not fire his weapon or injure anyone, while he himself was beaten, and he had a minimal prior criminal history. Sentence vacated, and reversed and remanded for a new sentencing hearing. (LAMPKIN, concurring; REYES, dissenting.)

Defendant, age 21 at time of incident, was convicted, after jury trial, of 1st degree murder. Prior to trial,  a licensed clinical psychologist determined that he was "of mildly retarded intellectual functioning. He was sentenced to 40 years. As Defendant did not receive a life sentence, either natural or de facto, he cannot establish the prejudice requirement necessary to excuse his failure to raise the claim that his sentence was unconstitutional at an earlier proceeding. Court properly denied leave to file a successive postconviction petition. (DELORT and ROCHFORD, concurring.)

(Modified upon denial of rehearing 3/26/21.) Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of attempted robbery and unlawful restraint but sentenced only on charge of attempted robbery. Court merged the charge of unlawful restraint into the charge of attempted robbery. Pursuant to the Murderer and Violent Offender Against Youth Registration Act, only a defendant convicted of a violent offense against youth is required to register. As Defendant was not convicted of such an offense, he is not required to register as a violent offender against youth. Surveillance video showed that Defendant's actions were sufficiently menacing to make him accountable, even if evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was indicating that he had a firearm or another dangerous weapon. Evidence was sufficient to support court's finding that Defendant was guilty, on basis of accountability, for his unidentified companion's attempted robbery. (CONNORS and ODEN JOHNSON, concurring.)