Criminal Law

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of delivering a controlled substance to a confidential source. No ineffective assistance counsel by defense counsel failing to object to prosecutor's rebuttal argument that police officer did not know who the target was until she was informed by the confidential source.  Prosecutor's statement was appropriate, as it was based on a reasonable inference drawn from testimony the jury heard. When counsel, in closing argument, asserts facts that are inferable from evidence before the jury, counsel need not state that counsel's argument rests upon an inference. (HARRIS and HOLDER WHITE, concurring.) 

(Correcting summary.) Defendant, age 24 at time of offenses, was convicted, after bench trial, of 3 counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, then age 11. Court properly denied his amended motion to suppress statements. Court's findings that officer was credible but Defendant was not credible, and that he knowingly waived his Miranda rights. are not against manifest weight of evidence. Officer read to Defendant the Miranda warnings, written in Spanish, his native language, and told officer, in Spanish, that he understood the warnings.Defendant's invocation of his right to not allocate is not a proper basis for court to rely on Defendant's lack of remorse. Court may not draw a negative inference from a defendant's exercise of his constitutional right to assert his innocence. Remanded for resentencing. (BIRKETT and SCHOSTOK, concurring.)

Defendant pled guilty in 2 separate cases to aggravated battery with a firearm and unlawful possession of a controlled substance. Please were entered simultaneously pursuant to agreement with the State that provided that Defendant would pay certain fines. Defendant moved to revoke a fine. A defendant who enters a negotiated plea should be permitted to seek relief based on hardship or inability to pay, without seeking to rescind the plea agreement. Court made error of law in denying Defendant's motion to revoke a fine on the basis that Defendant had not moved to withdraw his plea. The relief Defendant seeks would not change the terms of the agreement. Remanded to determine whether there is good cause to revoke Defendant's fine. (BURKE and SCHOSTOK, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted of multiple counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child and aggravated criminal sexual abuse. Remanded for limited purpose of allowing court to inquire into the factual basis of Defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Statements in PSI attributed to Defendant specifically refer to counsel’s failure to call Defendant’s niece as a witness, who would have testified that victims told her that Defendant did not commit the offense. The substance of Defendant’s statements raised a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. As a PSI is prepared for the court, the court is required to consider it, and thus a Krankel preliminary inquiry was warranted. (JORGENSEN and BURKE, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of 3 counts of 1^st-degree murder, 2 counts of attempted 1^st-degree murder, unlawful possession of a firearm by a street gang member, and mob action. Defendant’s conviction of unlawful possession of a firearm by a street gang member is reversed, and is reduced to aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, as evidence was sufficient to uphold a conviction of that offense; remanded for sentencing on that offense. State failed to introduce any evidence to establish that the Latin Kings were a “street gang” in that they engaged in a “course or pattern of criminal activity.” Double jeopardy precludes State from retrying Defendant with evidence that it failed to present at the first trial. (BURKE and BRIDGES, concurring.)