U.S. v. O’Leary
Record contained sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction in bench trial on charge of distribution of 280 grams of substance containing cocaine base under 21 USC section 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(ii). While defendant argued that record failed to show beyond reasonable doubt that he had distributed 280 grams of cocaine, Dist. Ct. could properly rely on inculpatory statements regarding drug quantity made in defendant's grand jury testimony, where his statements were corroborated by parties' stipulation, as well as contents of wire-tapped telephone calls indicating frequency of sales and quantity of drugs contained in packets of drugs sold to others. Also, defendant was responsible for amount of drugs sold by others engaged in same conspiracy that established requisite quantity of drugs at issue in charged offense.
People v. Gladney
Defendant was convicted of unlawful possession of a controlled substance and unlawful possession with intent to deliver. Police officer's testimony that "other officers" saw Defendant hand someone a bag was hearsay. This officer did not personally observe transfer but reported what other officers saw, and was elicited to prove the truth of the matter asserted. This statement was a "plain error." Evidence of elements of both offenses (Defendant's possession and intent to distribute the narcotics contained in the bags) was not close. Impeachment of a witness's statement was permitted because this testimony affirmatively damaged the State's case. Thus, State properly impeached witness's testimony by introducing additional evidence of witnesses's statement to the police through another police sergeant's testimony. Sergeant's testimony as to witness's statement at the scene was excepted from hearsay as a prior inconsistent statement admitted to impeach witness's testimony and is not a "plain error." (CARTER and O'BRIEN, concurring.)
People v. York
Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of retail theft and burglary and sentenced to concurrent terms totaling 6 years, for stealing several bottles of liquor and steaks from a grocery store. A rational trier of fact could have found that Defendant entered the store with the intent to commit a theft. His actions were quick and deliberate, a get-away driver was waiting for him, he had committed similar crimes in the past, and he made comments suggesting, in phone conversations, that he planned to commit a theft at that grocery that day, which clearly acknowledged a preconceived plan. (HUDSON and BRIDGES, concurring.)
People v. Abtahi
In 1997, Defendant pled guilty to manufacture or delivery of heroin, and was sentenced to 2 years probation. In 2017, Defendant filed a section 2-1401 petition through same attorney who represented him at the plead hearing. Petition alleged that court knew Defendant was not a U.S. citizen but did not admonishment him that he was pleading guilty to a "deportable offense." Court properly dismissed Defendant's Section 2-1401 petition as untimely. Trial court had personal and subject-matter jurisdiction when it entered judgment on guilty plea, and thus Defendant fails to show that the judgment was void. Thus, Defendant was not excused from the 2-year limitations period for section 2-1401 petitions. (CUNNINGHAM and CONNORS, concurring.)
People v. Dawson
Court revoked Defendant's probation and resentenced her to 2 years for aggravated battery. Defendant's appellate counsel moved to withdraw for lack of reasonable argument for appeal. Defendant, who has fully served her sentence, failed to file a response to appellate counsel's motion. Assuming that Defendant will not again face a sentencing hearing, she lacks a personal stake in the question of probation revocation, and her appeal is moot. (DeARMOND and HARRIS, concurring.)
U.S. v. Perez
People v. Othman
(Vacated in Part by Supervisory Order 01/09/20.) Defendant, age 17 at time of offense, was convicted, after jury trial, of the 2008 murder of his uncle. Conviction was based on the impeached, conflicting testimonies of a jailhouse. informant and a crack addict. Jury received evidence that was not related to the crime charged (Defendant's possession of a gun in 2010), and thus should not have been admitted, so that the sufficiency of the evidence is questionable. Court erred when it gave jury instruction IPI 3.14, and limited its consideration of the gun in Defendant's possession in 2010 to a question of intent only.Court erred when it failed to ask venire members the 8 questions required under Zehr, per Rule 431(b).Evidence was closely balanced. Defense counsel's failure to object to hearsay denied Defendant his basic right to challenge the State's case. Cumulative effect of errors and ineffective assistance of counsel resulted in an unfair trial. (WALKER, concurring; COGHLAN, specially concurring.)
In re Commitment of Williams
Jury found Respondent to be a sexually violent person. Court did not abuse its discretion in determining that it did not lack sufficient information to assist in framing the commitment order, and thus did not err in holding the dispositional hearing immediately after trial. Plain language of 725 ILCS 207(40(b)(1) establishes that trial court is permitted to hold a dispositional hearing immediately after trial; but that court, if it believes it lacks sufficient information to make a determination, may adjourn hearing and order Department of Human Services to conduct a predispositional investigation or supplementary mental examination. Section 40(b)(1) does not dictate that Respondent is entitled to a court-appointed expert witness.(LYTTON, concurring; McDADE, dissenting.)