Criminal Law

Defendant was found guilty of two counts of obstructing a peace officer and appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove he caused a material impediment to a peace officer’s authorized duties. Defendant also argued, in the alternative, that the jury was not properly instructed on an essential element of obstructing a peace officer. The appellate court affirmed, finding that defendant hindered the conducting of a routine traffic stop when he failed to provide his identification and refused to exit his vehicle. The appellate court further found that the jury was properly instructed. (STEIGMANN and GRISCHOW, concurring)

Defendant appealed from the second-stage dismissal of his post-conviction petition, arguing that post-conviction counsel performed unreasonably by failing to amend his pro se petition to adequately present his claim that his sentence violated the proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution. The appellate court affirmed, finding that defendant’s proportionate penalties claim failed because his sentence was consistent with precedent and the trial court did not expressly refuse to consider the defendant’s age and, as a result, could not conclude that the presumption of reasonable assistance was rebutted. (KENNEDY and BIRKETT, concurring)

Defendant entered an open guilty plea to unlawful possession of a controlled substance and was sentenced to 20 years in prison. Defendant appealed, arguing that he was denied a fair sentencing hearing because the trial court considered facts from a co-defendant’s case during sentencing. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the defendant procedurally defaulted the issue and, that even if defendant had not defaulted the issue, the trial court did not improperly consider facts from the co-defendant’s trial during the sentencing hearing. (LANNERD and GRISCHOW, concurring)

Defendant pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon and was sentenced to two and a half years in prison. Defendant did not file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea but filed a pro se motion for notice of appeal. On appeal, he argued that the UPWF statute is facially unconstitutional. The appellate court affirmed, explaining that while the failure to file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea did not preclude the court from addressing his constitutional challenge on direct appeal it nonetheless found that plaintiff’s argument was foreclosed by prior precedent finding that the UPWF statute was not unconstitutional under the second amendment. (DOHERTY and GRISCHOW, concurring)