Criminal Law

Defendant juveniles were sentenced prior to the new juvenile sentencing provisions, including subsection (b) which gives the trial court discretion not to impose otherwise mandatory firearm sentencing enhancements.  Subsection (b) of the new juvenile sentencing provisions mitigates punishment because the potential sentence is "less severe" than under the prior sentencing scheme. Thus, Defendants are not eligible to be sentenced under subsection (b). Because amendment to section 5-130(1)(a) of Juvenile Court Act (which eliminated armed robbery while armed with a firearm and aggravated vehicular hijacking while armed with a firearm, offenses of which that Defendant had been convicted, from the list of automatic transfer offenses) became effective after one juvenile Defendant's trial court proceedings were concluded, because no reversible error necessitates remand for further proceedings to which the amended statute could apply, and because that Defendant is no longer subject to jurisdiction of juvenile court, that amendment does not apply retroactively in that Defendant's case.(KARMEIER, FREEMAN, THOMAS, KILBRIDE, GARMAN, and BURKE, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of 2nd degree murder in stabbing death, and was sentenced to 18 years. The 1st-degree murder charge was not a new and additional charge, and it thus relates back to the original 2nd degree murder charge. Any delays attributable to Defendant on initial charge are also attributable to him on subsequent charge. As no speedy-trial violation occurred, trial counsel's failure to raise a speedy-trial claim was neither deficient nor prejudicial. (KARMEIER, FREEMAN, KILBRIDE, GARMAN, BURKE, and THEIS, concurring.)

After indictment and subsequent superseding information against Defendant for violation of bail bond, court dismissed information for failure to comply with statute of limitations. Violation of bail bond is a continuing offense. Once Defendant was convicted and sentenced, his obligation to appear terminated and he was no longer violating his bail bond. Court properly found that State's information for violation of bail bond was filed after limitations period had expired. (KARMEIER, THOMAS, KILBRIDE, GARMAN, BURKE, and THEIS, concurring.)

Defendant, who entered a fully negotiated guilty plea to charge of being an armed habitual criminal, and was sentenced to 18 years, challenged his plea counsel's performance in a postconviction petition. Defendant claimed reliance on his plea counsel's erroneous advise that he would serve only 50% of 18-year sentence if he pled guilty to that charge. Defendant failed to establish requisite showing of prejudice because he did not show that a decision to reject his plea bargain would have been rational under the circumstances of his case. Without requisite substantial showing of a constitutional violation, Defendant is not entitled to evidentiary hearing on his postconviction petition. (KARMEIER, FREEMAN, THOMAS, GARMAN, BURKE, and THEIS, concurring.)

Defendant, who was convicted of unlawful delivery of cocaine after having prior conviction of unlawful delivery of a controlled substance, filed pro se motion for additional presentence credit, which trial court denied. Because Defendant failed to file a timely notice of appeal, appellate court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. The final judgment in a criminal case is the entry of the sentence. Trial court entered 2nd amended sentencing judgment, and under Rule 606(b), Defendant had 30 days after that date to file either a motion directed against the judgment or a notice of appeal. Nunc pro tunc orders may be used to correct clerical errors, but may not be used to challenge a court's previous decision. (HARRIS and STEIGMANN, concurring.)

Because Defendant, who pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance, did not file a timely Rule 604(d) motion after his guilty plea, trial court retained jurisdiction only to "correct clerical errors or matters of form", including to consider Defendant's motion to amend mittimus, but not to review any substantive issue. However, that jurisdiction does not automatically extend to the appellate court. Trial court's order denying motion to amend mittimus is not a final order for purposes of appeal. Thus, because Defendant filed no Rule 604(d) motion, appellate court has no jurisdiction to review that order denying motion. (TURNER and STEIGMANN, concurring.)