Criminal Law

Defendant pled guilty to two counts of aggravated battery with a firearm and was sentenced to two consecutive terms of 10 years in prison. He subsequently filed a post-conviction petition arguing that his trial court counsel was ineffective when counsel allowed the son of the trial judge to participate in a meeting with defendant prior to the entry of his guilty plea. The petition was dismissed at the second stage of proceedings and the appellate court reversed by finding that defendant’s post-conviction counsel provided unreasonable assistance. The supreme court reversed the appellate court and affirmed the trial court judgment, finding that post-conviction counsel did not render an unreasonable level of assistance where the record showed that counsel's arguments raised the best options available and explained that counsel cannot be said to have rendered unreasonable assistance even where the arguments lacked legal merit, were not particularly compelling, or were ultimately unsuccessful. (THEIS, NEVILLE, HOLDER WHITE, ROCHFORD, O’BRIEN, concurring. OVERSTREET took no part in the decision)

Defendant appealed from an order of the circuit court denying his motion for release from pretrial detention, asserting that he was not brought to trial within 90 days as is required for defendants who were denied pretrial release. The appellate court vacated the order and remanded, explaining that the record was not sufficient and instructing the trial court to hold a hearing regarding the cause of a continuance of defendant’s case. (KENNEDY and JORGENSEN, concurring)

Defendant was charged with aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, based on his lack of a FOID card or concealed carry license, and unlawful use of a weapon by a felon. The State filed an interlocutory appeal after the trial court granted defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence police found after detaining defendant while he placed items into the truck of his vehicle while it was parked on a public street. On appeal, the State argued that the detention was not an arrest that required probable cause, but rather a Terry stop conducted for the purpose of determining whether defendant had a license. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the testimony from the suppression hearing made it clear that officers had nothing beyond the defendant’s possession of a concealed firearm in public on which to base a reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop and that the constitutionally protected conduct of carrying a concealed firearm in public cannot, by itself, serve as a basis for reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity is occurring. (McBRIDE and HOWSE, concurring)

Defendant was accused of murder but was remanded to the Department of Human Services following a finding of unfitness. The DHS later recommended that defendant be conditionally released and he was transferred to a private facility. The trial court granted the State’s motion to impose additional conditions on the conditional release, barring contact between defendant and his aunt and preventing the defendant from accessing the Internet. The defendant appealed, arguing that the conditions were without sufficient basis and against the manifest weight of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part, finding that the no-contact order was not against the manifest weight of the evidence but that the order prohibiting defendant from accessing the Internet was not narrowly tailored or reasonably related to any public interest and was against the manifest weight of the evidence. (DAVENPORT and ANDERSON, concurring)

Defendant appealed from the trial court’s grant of the State’s petition for pretrial detention, arguing that the petition was untimely and, even if it was timely, that the trial court erred in ordering his detention. The appellate court rejected defendant’s claim that the petition was not timely but reversed and remanded for a new hearing by finding that the trial court failed to conduct an appropriate hearing on the State’s petition. (TAILOR and HYMAN, concurring)

Defendant appealed from the summary dismissal of his post-conviction petition at the first stage of proceedings. Defendant raised three arguments in his appeal: that inadequate jury waiver admonitions undermined his right to a free trail, that the trial court record did not include any history of plea discussions, and that both the trial court and an earlier appellate court misinterpreted case law. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the jury waiver was proper, the record demonstrated that no plea offer was made, and that plaintiff’s final argument was barred by res judicata. (TAILOR and GAMRATH, concurring)

Defendant was arrested and charged with five counts of attempted first-degree murder, one count of aggravated battery with a firearm, and one count of aggravated discharge of a firearm. The trial court set bail but defendant remained in custody. After the Pretrial Fairness Act went into effect, the trial court ordered defendant be detained. Defendant appealed and the appellate court reversed on procedural grounds, finding that the State’s petition for detention was untimely. The supreme court reversed and remanded to the appellate court, explaining that the petition was timely and instructing the appellate court to consider whether the State met its burden of proof. The appellate court found that it did and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. (D.B. WALKER and R. VAN TINE, concurring)