Criminal Law

Defendant pled guilty to felony murder. After imposing negotiated 22-year sentence, court gave insufficient admonishments, per Rule 605(c ), as to what Defendant must do to perfect an appeal, including what motion to file to withdraw his plea and vacate judgment. Remanded for proper admonishments and to allow Defendant to file postplea motions. (PIERCE AND SIMON, concurring).

Defendant, age 18 at time of offense, was convicted of 1st degree murder of his infant son.Defendant's statement to police was improperly coerced. Officers made several comments to Defendant what happens to  "baby killers" in jail, which were threats of physical violence; and religious pleas, all are indicative of improper coercion. Considering multiple instances of coercive conduct by police, factors weighing in favor of a finding of involuntariness outweigh the factors indicating voluntariness of confession.(O'BRIEN, concurring; HOLDRIDGE, dissenting.)

As part of investigation into gang activity, State' Attorney's Office obtained authorization to intercept private communications as to certain phone number. Defendants were charged with various offenses and learned that State intended to introduce at trial certain evidence arising from wiretaps. Court properly suppressed evidence derived from wiretaps, as State's Attorney's Office failed to comply with article 108B of Code of Criminal Procedure, as the elected State's Attorney (SA) failed to personally apply for the wiretap orders. SA could not delgate to ASAs the authority to apply for wiretap orders. (HUDSON and ZENOFF, concurring. )

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of driving with blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08 or more. Defendant did not object to breath-test result's admission into evidence. Jury heard that breath-test machine was subject to a 0.005 margin of error, and jury also heard arresting officer's testimony and received printouts of readings showing results of accuracy tests and Defendant's result. Jury was properly instructed. The weight to be given State's evidence was for the jury to decide.  Any rational trier of fact could have found Defendant guilty of offense charged, based on reading of 0.082 BAC taken from breath-test machine.(HUDSON and HUTCHINSON, concurring.)

(Court opinion corrected 2/23/18.) Defendant, age 17 at time of offense, was convicted for participating in gang rape, kidnapping, and murder of 16-year-old girl. Court properly dismissed Defendant's successive postconviction petition at 2nd stage. Petition asserted that Defendant's discretionary sentence of natural life in prison without parole was imposed without consideration of factors cited in 2012 U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Miller v. Alabama. Sentencing court considered the type of evidence that Miller decision requires for a juvenile sentencing hearing.Sentencing court sufficiently addressed factors identified in Illinois Supreme Court's 2017 People v. Holman decision, and Defendant presented mitigating evidence that addressed these factors, and the resentencing court considered them. Defendant's sentencing hearing was not constitutionally defective.(HARRIS and SIMON, concurring).

After hearing, court properly denied motion of Defendant, who had been charged with DUI in Walgreens parking lot, to rescind statutory summary suspension (SSS). Defendant presented no evidence to show that parking lot was on privately owned property and that it was privately maintained, and thus failed to establish a prima facie case for rescission based on private parking lot rule. Defendant admitted that he submitted to breath test, and although he did not establish that he did not refuse to submit to blood and urine tests, court's finding that Defendant did not refuse to submit to chemical tests was not against manifest weight of evidence. Defendant testified on direct examination about statements he made to police officers, and thus State's questions of Defendant, on cross-examination, about other statements he made to officers was not outside scope of direct examination. (WRIGHT, concurring; LYTTON, dissenting.)

Defendant was convicted of possession with intent to deliver cocaine. State’s evidence was sufficient, considering implausibility of Defendant’s testimony, which may be considered in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence as a whole.  (SCHOSTOK and SPENCE, concurring.)