Criminal Law

Defendant was found guilty of one count of unlawful possession of less than five grams of methamphetamine and was sentenced to nine months of conditional discharge and 90 days in jail, pending a remission hearing. At the remission hearing, defendant admitted he failed to complete community service and the court ordered defendant to serve the 90-day sentence. The State did not present any evidence but stated that the discharge officer did not have any proof of service hours having been completed. Defendant appealed, arguing that the remission hearing did not comply with due process because the State was deprived of its burden to prove he failed community service and he was deprived of the ability to confront and cross-examine the discharge officer. The appellate court affirmed, finding that there was no need to cross-examine when defendant had already proven his failure to comply by his own admission. (ZENOFF and DeARMOND, concurring.)

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal after one justice recused and the remaining justices were unable to secure the constitutionally-required concurrence of four judges for a decision. (NEVILLE, took no part.)

Defendant appealed from his conviction for aggravated assault, arguing on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion when it refused his self-defense jury instruction and when it refused to provide substantive answers to the jury’s questions about the legality of defendant’s gun possession, and that the trial court committed reversible error when it failed to admonish defendant as to his right to testify in his own defense. The appellate court held that the trial court’s failure to instruct on self-defense warranted reversal and remand for a new trial. The appellate court also found that the trial court abused its discretion regarding its answers to the jury’s questions and that admonishment regarding the defendant’s right to testify is considered best practice. (MIKVA and ODEN JOHNSON, concurring)

Defendant, who was found guilty of attempted first-degree murder, aggravated discharge of a weapon, and two weapons violations, appealed from an order of the trial court denying his post-conviction petition after holding an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, defendant argued that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel because his attorney failed to advise him of the potential penalties of all of the charges against him and that if he was properly advised, he would have accepted a plea offer. The appellate court affirmed, finding that after giving deference to the trial court’s credibility findings the trial court’s judgment was not manifestly erroneous. (KENNEDY and MULLEN, concurring)

Defendant was found guilty of first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, as well as several armed robberies and other felonies and appealed from his conviction. On appeal, he argued that his confession was involuntary because police lied to him about his rights to speak with counsel or make a phone call, disregarded his repeated requests to speak with a lawyer, interrogated him seven times over three days, threatened him with the death penalty, and suggested that he would be sexually assaulted in jail. The State argued either that defendant voluntarily waived his rights or that the admission of the confession was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellate court disagreed, explaining that it could not ignore a situation where law enforcement “flagrantly disregard” a defendant’s rights and that the error in admitting the confession was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (McBRIDE and HOWSE, concurring)

Defendant appealed from a circuit court order granting the State’s petition to revoke his pretrial release, arguing that the trial court erred in revoking his pretrial release because all of the relevant charges were not Class A misdemeanors. The appellate court affirmed, finding that section 110-6(a) of the Criminal Code allows for revocation if pretrial release was granted for a felony or a Class A misdemeanor and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that no conditions of release would reasonably assure the appearance of defendant where defendant had demonstrated a consistent disregard for court orders and had repeatedly violated the conditions of his pretrial release. (McHANEY and BOIE, concurring)

Defendant appealed from his conviction for unlawful use of a weapon by a felon, arguing that the circuit court erred when it did not hold a hearing on defendant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to quash his arrest and suppress evidence, and that the statute prohibiting felons from possessing firearms is either facially unconstitutional or unconstitutional as applied to the defendant. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the record was not sufficiently developed to determine whether trial counsel was ineffective, the statute was not facially unconstitutional, and that defendant forfeited the argument that it was unconstitutional as applied to him. (ODEN JOHNSON and NAVARRO, concurring)