Criminal Law

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of 2 counts of attempted 1st degree murder, 2 counts of aggravated battery with a firearm, and 1 count each of home invasion, armed robbery, and aggravated battery of a child. Defendant is not entitled to remand for further 2nd-stage proceedings. Defendant's postconviction counsel was not required to independently satisfy duties under Rule 651(c), because her predecessor counsel had already filed a valid Rule 651(c) certificate. Defendant failed to rebut the presumption of reasonable assistance created by predecessor counsel's Rule 651(c) certificate, and did not identify any specific deficiency in his subsequent postconviction counsel's performance other than her failure to independently comply with Rule 651(c). Thus, there is no basis to remand for further 2nd-stage proceedings.  (GORDON and REYES, concurring.)

Defendant was charged, in a 2016 case, with 2 counts of theft, and in 2017 case with unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon. Court erred in dismissing indictments on basis that it had set Defendant's bail at an excessive amount.Defendant cannot show that he was actually and substantially prejudiced by the excessive bail. Even if Defendant were so prejudiced, court abused its discretion in finding that dismissal of indictments was an appropriate remedy. Defendant had a procedural avenue under Rule 604(c)(1) to challenge the excessive bond and obtain relief expeditiously. (BRIDGES and HUTCHINSON, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of criminal damage to property in excess of $500 but not exceeding $10,000, for "keying" a vehicle in a parking lot. Trier of fact could reasonably conclude that an auto shop owner with decades of experience could make an estimate within a 25% margin of error, as the estimate to which he testified was nearly 25% higher than the $500 threshold for a Class 4 felony conviction.l State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the damage to the vehicle exceeded $500. (SCHOSTOK and BIRKETT, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of retail theft of property worth less than $300, based on evidence that he stole several shirts from Macy's, and sentenced to an extended term of 4 years. Based on his previous conviction of retail theft, the offense was a Class 4 felony. Because of his history of prior felony convictions, he was eligible for an extended-term sentence of 3-6 years. Given the evidence in aggravation, especially Defendant's extensive criminal history, Defendant was not entitled to the 3-year minimum extended-term sentence for a Class 4 felony. Court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant to 4 years. (BRIDGES and SCHOSTOK, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon after police found a firearm in his vehicle. Defendant positioned his car in such a way to cause officers to have reasonable suspicion that he was or could be violating the traffic obstruction section of the Municipal Code. Defendant was seized within meaning of 4th amendment when police turned on the vehicle's rotating lights, blocked his vehicle from moving forward, and then approached his vehicle on either side with flashlights, and when officer asked that Defendant show his hands.A reasonable person in Defendant's position would not have believed he was free to terminate the encounter. A Terry stop occurred, at the latest, when officer ordered Defendant's hands in the air. This seizure was justified as reasonable by the traffic stop and by the suspicious arm movements that Defendant made when officers initially approached him. As officers further investigated, it became clear that Defendant was hiding a gun under his seat and trying to hide this fact from the officers.All of these facts provided officers with reason to further seize Defendant and search his car, where they found gun readily accessible under the driver's seat. Court properly denied motion to suppress. (PUCINSKI and COBBS, concurring.)

Defendant pled guilty and sentenced to 110 months in federal prison for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and was also charged with attempted murder, aggravated battery, and multiple weapon charges in Illinois state court. Defendant moved to dismiss the state charges, alleging violation of double jeopardy. The attempted murder and aggravated battery charges were not based on the same act as that underlying firearm possession charge in federal court, and thus no double jeopardy violation in subsequent filing of state charged. Possession of the gun prior to the shooting, standing alone, was sufficient to form the basis of the federal charge.(LAVIN and PUCINSKI, concurring.)

In a joined jury trial, and after hearing the identification testimony of 7 witnesses implicating Defendant, jury found him guilty in 2 separate cases of attempted aggravated criminal sexual assault after he attacked 2 victims a week apart. Witnesses paid a sufficient degree of attention to identity of the offender, with each witness testifying that they were able to focus on the offender's face. Based on Defendant's offense history, court properly used its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences  to protect the public. However, combined 50-year sentence offers him little to no opportunity to be restored to useful citizenship, although the court found that he had potential for rehabilitation. Sentence reduced to an extended term sentence of 15 years in each case, to run consecutively for total 30 years. (WALKER, concurring in part and dissenting in part; PIERCE, concurring in part and dissenting in part.)