Criminal Law

Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of disorderly conduct. Defendant had made a lengthy phone call to a private school's director of advancement, and asked numerous questions about school's protocol for handling shootings, and made several disturbing comments about shooting children. A rational trier of fact could have found that Defendant knowingly acted unreasonably and knew or should have known that his act would alarm school administrator so as to breach the peace. Although his speech was not obscene, it was morbid, disturbing, and well beyond a reasonable concern for school security, and thus not protected by the 1st amendment. (McLAREN and JORGENSEN, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted of driving while license suspended. Defense counsel was ineffective for twice agreeing to toll the speedy trial clock, despite expressing readiness for trial on both of the scheduled trial dates. Counsel's ineffectiveness was prejudicial as it resulted in Defendant being brought to trial outside of the statutorily prescribed 160-day period. (HOLDRIDGE and LYTTON, concurring.)

Defendant pled guilty to burglary and was sentenced to 2 years probation. He then violated his probation and was resentenced to 2 years probation. Defendant entered nonnegotiated plea of guilty of defrauding a drug and alcohol screening test, but failed to appear at his sentencing hearing, and was sentenced in absentia. Defense counsel filed motion to reconsider Defendants' sentences pursuant to Rule 604(d), but failed to file a certificate of compliance with Rule 604(d). Dismissal of the appeals, rather than remand, is the proper disposition. Defendant made himself unavailable for consultation with his attorney and thus made it impossible for his counsel to strictly comply with the certificate requirement. (McLAREN and JORGENSEN, concurring.)

(Modified upon denial of rehearing 3/4/19.) Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of 2 counts of aggravated discharge of a firearm in the direction of a peace officer. Eyewitness testimony of officers, and other evidence, was sufficient for conviction. Court properly admitted photograph of bullet hole in garage, as it was relevant in light of officer's and evidence technician's testimony of what they personally observed in the garage at the scene. Probative value of evidence in showing direction of bullet that officer saw Defendant discharge from his gun substantially outweighed any danger of unfair prejudice. No error in prosecutor's statement to jury that the officers were brave. (MIKVA and PIERCE, concurring.)

(Modified upon denial of rehearing 2/28/19.) Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of armed robbery and aggravated robbery. Court properly dismissed Defendant's postconviction petition, as he failed to make a substantial showing that his trial counsel was ineffective. Counsel's failure to call a witness to testify was a matter of trial strategy, as there were many reasons to not call that witness.  Even if witness' statements to police had been introduced at trial, it would have simply corroborated other witnesses and thus would have been cumulative.(KARMEIER, GARMAN, THEIS, and NEVILLE, concurring; THOMAS and KILBRIDE, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of armed violence and unlawful use of a weapon (UUW) by a felon. Court properly denied Defendant's motion to quash search warrant and suppress evidence. Confidential informant appeared in person before the issuing judge, and provided a firsthand observation of illegal activity by Defendant being in possession of several firearms which informant described in detail.  Defendant was proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of armed violence due to risk of violence associated with being armed with a dangerous weapon while constructively possessing drugs.(JORGENSEN and HUDSON, concurring.)