Criminal Law

Court properly denied Defendant's motions to withdraw his plea and reconsider his sentence. Motions, supported by defense counsel's affidavit, contended that trial court told defense counsel during Rule 402 conference that it would sentence Defendant to 8 to 12 years on plea of guilty to aggravated battery charge, but court sentenced Defendant to 16 years. Defense counsel stated to judge that it would be a blind plea. Court thoroughly admonished Defendant under Rule 402, and Defendant confirmed that he had no agreement with State, his attorney, or anyone else, and never said that he did not understand.(HUTCHINSON and ZENOFF, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of armed robbery. Statement of defense counse, at Defendant's sentencing hearing in a separate case, "It is also bench, Judge. We waived." is insufficient to show Defendant had understanding of jury waiver. No transcript or docket entries reflect that Defendant waived jury trial. Remanded for new trial. Evidence was sufficient to convict Defendant of armed robbery; thus, no double jeopardy bar to retrial. (McDADE, concurring; WRIGHT, dissenting.)

Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of being an armed habitual criminal. Evidence was sufficient to allow rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant was in control of a certain vehicle, which was in parking lot of apartment complex, and Defendant was sitting on a porch in front of that building, next to where traffic stop was initiated.  Evidence was sufficient to prove Defendant had knowledge of the .40-caliber handgun, which was found in back seat of that vehicle. Thus State sufficiently proved that Defendant had constructive possession of that firearm. (WRIGHT and O'BRIEN, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted of aggravated battery of a woman she arranged to meet through Internet website; altercation between the two resulted in Defendant striking the woman with a baseball story. Court found that their stories were similar and resolution turned on determining who was the aggressor. State proved Defendant's use of deadly force was unreasonable. Evidence disproved beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant acted in self-defense. No denial of due process right to a fair trial, as court indicated that its findings were an alternative basis for guilty verdicts. Defendant lacked requisite notice that State intended to treat her conduct as 2 separate acts, and thus one conviction is vacated. (CARTER and McDADE, concurring.)

Court granted Defendant's motion to quash his arrest and suppress evidence. Because an identified citizen informant reported, via 911, the smell of burnt cannabis coming from Defendant's vehicle, police had reasonable suspicion to stop Defendant's vehicle. Various factors demonstrate sufficient reliability of information. (HUDSON and McLAREN, concurring.)

DOC inmate filed complaint for mandamus relief against chair of Prisoner Review Board, asking that court compel chair to conduct a new revocation hearing as to revocation of his mandatory supervised release (MSR). Envelope in which notice of appeal was mailed was clearly postmarked, and postmark can thus be relied upon to conclude that notice of appeal was timely filed. Defendant filed mandamus complaint more than 10 years after denial of his request for continuance at revocation hearing, and Defendant provides no reasonable excuse for delay. Court properly dismissed mandamus complaint as prejudice by delayed filing of complaint is inherent. Court properly denied Defendant's requests for default, as substantial justice would not have been accomplished had default motions been granted. (McDADE and WRIGHT, concurring.)

Intervenors appeal circuit court's order denying their request to open for public inspection 2 motions in limine filed under seal by Defendant who was charged with 1st degree murder of his former spouse. Once circuit court granted Defendant leave to file those 2 legal documents, they became court records. Presumption of access attaches to motions in limine filed with court in criminal proceedings Remanded for proceedings to determine whether presumption has been rebutted. (HOLDER WHITE and POPE, concurring.)