Criminal Law

Defendant appealed from his conviction of unlawful possession of a controlled substance, contending that the circuit court erred when it denied his motion to suppress because the contraband was not in plain view when police officers investigated a gas leak in his home. The Illinois Supreme Court agreed and reversed, finding that the contraband was not in plain view because it was located in a chained and locked cabinet in the defendant’s kitchen. (THEIS, OVERSTREET, HOLDER WHITE, CUNNINGHAM, and ROCHFORD, concurring and NEVILLE, specially concurring)

Defendant appalled from a detention order denying him pretrial release. The sole issue for consideration on appeal was a determination of the appropriate standard of review a reviewing court must apply when reviewing a circuit court’s ultimate detention decision under section 110-6.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts, holding that the appropriate standard of review was de novo. (NEVILLE, HOLDER WHITE, and CUNNINGHAM, concurring and OVERSTREET, THEIS, and ROCHFORD, specially concurring)

The circuit court granted defendant a new sentencing hearing after holding a hearing under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act. The State appealed, arguing that the circuit court failed to hold defendant to his burden of proving a substantial constitutional violation under the proportionate penalties clause. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the circuit court properly recognized its role as factfinder and its responsibility to make credibility determinations and exercised that role in weighing the evidence. The appellate court also held that the circuit court did not err when it granted a new sentencing hearing based on defendant’s substantial showing that, at the time of the offense, he was developmentally more like a juvenile than an adult, and that his youth and its attendant circumstances were not properly considered before the trial court imposed a 105-year sentence. (McLAREN and MULLEN, concurring)

Respondent was found to be a sexually violent person under the Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act and was committed to the Department of Human Services. Respondent petitioned for conditional release, which was denied by the circuit court and affirmed by the appellate court. The State then filed a motion for periodic reexamination and finding of no probable cause, which was granted by the circuit court. Respondent appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion for relief, that the wrong judge heard his motion and challenged the non-party standing of DHS. The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. (HYMAN and C.A. WALKER, concurring and specially concurring)

Defendant entered a blind guilty plea to one count of first-degree murder and was sentenced to 40 years in prison. He subsequently filed a petition for post-judgment relief under section 2-1401, alleging that his 40-year sentence was a de facto life sentence in violation of his constitutional rights. The circuit court denied his petition and the appellate court affirmed. The supreme court also affirmed, finding that after taking into account the seriousness of the crime and the defendant’s rehabilitative potential, defendant failed to state a meritorious claim that his sentence violated the proportionate penalties clause. (THEIS, NEVILLE, OVERSTREET, CUNNINGHAM, and O’BRIEN, concurring. ROCHFORD took no part in the decision)