Criminal Law

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of involuntary sexual servitude of a minor, traveling to meet a minor, and grooming, based on police sting operation. At trial, Defendant asserted the defense of entrapment. Counsel was ineffective for failing to offer a definition of "predisposed", in response to jury's request for legal definition of "predisposed", instead of acquiescing in court's decisions to instruct jurors to continue deliberating. "Predisposed has a narrower meaning, in context of entrapment defense, as compared to commonly understood meaning. Issue of Defendant's predisposition was the lynchpin of his defense, and jury should not have been allowed to labor under a misunderstanding of that concept. Counsel was ineffective for failing to present evidence that Defendant lacked a criminal record, as that is strong evidence showing lack of predisposition. Counsel unreasonably failed to object to mischaracterization of the burden of proof and to an improperly broad articulation of predisposition. Cumulative effect of counsel's deficient performance rendered proceeding unreliable. (JORGENSEN and BRIDGES, concurring.)

Defendant entered into global plea agreement resolving 6 separate felony cases.Three months later, Defendant filed motions to withdraw his guilty pleas. Defendant's criminal conviction for burglary he committed 12 years prior, at age 17, qualifies as a conviction for purposes of sentencing Defendant as a Class X offender. Court did not err in denying Defendant's motions to withdraw his guilty pleas, and trial counsel was not ineffective in advising Defendant he was subject to Class X sentencing. (KNECHT and CAVANAGH, concurring.) 

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of 2 counts of predatory criminal sexual assault and sentenced to consecutive terms of 25 and 20 years. Court denied Defendant's pro se petition seeking mitochondrial DNA testing of a bedsheet.  No ineffective assistance of counsel by counsel failing to amend Defendant's pro se petition, as no amendment could have overcome petition's fundamental flaws. DNA evidence firmly linked Defendant to mark on victim's neck, corroborated physician's independt testimony. (MIKVA and GRIFFIN, concurring.)

Defendant, age 17 at time of offense, filed pro se postconviction alleging that his 45-year sentence (mandatory minimum for 1st degree murder) is unconstitutional. He had pled guilty to 1 count of 1st degree murder and 1 count of aggravated battery with a firearm. In light of Illinois Supreme Court's 2019 People v. Buffer decision, the 45-year sentence is a de facto life sentence which violates the 8th amendment. Remanded to trial court for resentencing, as trial court did not have occasion to consider Defendant's youth and its attendant characteristics. (DELORT and ROCHFORD, concurring.)

Defendant was charged with multiple counts of sexual abuse and sexual assault of his minor daughter. Defendant pled guilty to 2 counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child in exchange for separate 10-year sentences for each count, to be served consecutively.Record shows active and understanding participation of Defendant in all court proceedings. Court gave all required admonitions required under Supreme Court Rules. Defense counsel spoke Spanish, and Defendant confirmed having conferred with his attorney; counsel never objected or informed court that interpreter failed to translate admonitions correctly. Court properly dismissed Defendant's pro se postconviction petition claiming that Spanish interpreter and his attorney failed to explain nature of guilty plea or admonish him of his right to file motion to withdraw his plea and file notice of appeal. (HOWSE and BURKE, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of 1st degree murder of 1 person and of attempted murder and aggravated battery with a firearm of another person. Defendant made a substantial showing on his claim of actual innocence and his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Defendant claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call 3 witnesses who would have corroborated his testimony that he acted in self-defense. Defendant filed affidavits from those 3 witnesses which corroborate his claims that rival gang members were armed that day. Their testimony would have provided critical support for Defendant's otherwise completely uncorroborated version of events that those gang members were armed and acted as the initial aggressors that led up to the shooting. (CUNNINGHAM and HARRIS, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted of domestic battery. Victim testified that she and Defendant had dated off an on for about 8 months; Defendant testified that the relationship was primarily sexual, and not "romantic". For domestic battery conviction, to show that victim was a "family or household member", which includes persons in a dating or engagement relationship, State must prove that relationship was a "serious courtship"; at a minimum, an established relationship with a significant romantic focus.  "Romantic" is interpreted broadly to include relationships that are romantic in a conventional sense and those that are mainly sexual. (McLAREN and BRIDGES, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, in 2013, of unlawful possession of cannabis with intent to deliver.  Defendant's traffic stop and subsequent arrest were conducted by the SAFE unit, a drug interdiction unit created by the state's attorney which was not authorized to take those actions. The illegal arrest had no impact on the circuit court's jurisdiction. Court had subject matter jurisdiction derived from the Illinois Constitution, and personal jurisdiction because Defendant appeared in court to answer charges. As the conviction is not void, his attack on conviction raised in petition for relief from judgment is subject to 2-year limitations period. Court properly dismissed petition as untimely, as it was filed more than 5 years after his conviction. (McDADE, concurring; WRIGHT, concurring in part and dissenting in part.)