Criminal Law

Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of unlawful use or possession of a weapon by a felon (UUWF) and was sentenced to 42 months. Defendant had given her purse to someone to hold while she went to use the restroom inside a store. When she returned, she retrieved the purse, then saw there was a gun in it which she denied having placed there; she did not touch the gun but tried to find the rightful owner of the gun. Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the necessity defense. Defense counsel never mentioned the affirmative defense of necessity at any time during any argument before the trial court. (GRIFFIN, concurring; PIERCE, dissenting.)

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of aggravated battery. Defendant showed defense counsel's possible neglect of the case as to his pro se claims that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate the recorded jail call in which an inmate allegedly confessed to the offense and for failing to object to admission of video recording of victim's interview at the hospital. A recording of another person confessing to the offense would have been important evidence, and it was unreasonable for counsel not to seek a continuance to attempt to obtain it. Thus, Defendant should be permitted to present these claims with assistance of new counsel.(WRIGHT, concurring; SCHMIDT, dissenting.) 

Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of robbery and unlawful restraint and sentenced as a Class X offender to 18 years. Defendant's criminal background does not contain 2 prior Class 2 felonies that subjected him to mandatory Class X sentencing.After Defendant's probation was terminated, Defendant having completed that probation satisfactorily, trial court entered findings of not guilty on his 2 1995 drug cases. Court erred in sentencing Defendant to mandatory Class X sentencing, which was plain error as it affected his fundamental liberty. At a new sentencing hearing, Defendant is to be sentenced in accordance with statutory guidelines for an extended Class 2 sentence, given his criminal history.  (GORDON and REYES, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of unlawful use or possession of weapons by a felon and armed habitual criminal (AHC). Court properly denied Defendant's motion to suppress evidence of gun. Search of the locked glove compartment for open containers of alcohol was justified under the automobile exception to warrant requirement, as officers had probable cause to search there for open containers of alcohol. Officer testified that he observed front seat passenger had one open beer in his hand and another between his feet. State failed to prove defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of AHC because it failed to prove Defendant's Iowa conviction for 2nd degree burglary met the definition of "forcible felony" under Illinois law. (O'BRIEN, concurring; HOLDRIDGE, dissenting.)

A guilty plea does not foreclose a claim of actual innocence under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act. A claim of innocence is a request for additional due process that is triggered by new and compelling evidence showing the defendant's innocence. Defendant did not invite deprivation of his liberty despite compelling evidence of his innocence when he lacked knowledge of and could not reasonably discover such evidence at the time of his plea. Trial court's decision to find that witness, who came forward only after being imprisoned and discussing the case with Defendant, was not credible, was not manifestly erroneous. (A. BURKE, KILBRIDE, GARMAN, THEIS, and NEVILLE, concurring.) 

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of attempted 1st degree murder, mob action, and aggravated battery with the stabbing of Defendant's friend. Victim identified Defendant and codefendant as the assailants. Defendant filed a pro se postconviction petition raising claims of actual innocence, involuntary waiver of his right to testify, and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Court summarily dismissed the petition as frivolous and patently without merit. Record shows that trial court confirmed that Defendant consulted with counsel on his decision whether to testify, he understood that the decision whether to testify was his alone, and he then chose not to testify. Summary dismissal was thus warranted. (GARMAN, KARMEIER, and THEIS, concurring; A. BURKE and NEVILLE, dissenting.)