Criminal Law

Defendant, age 17 at time of offense, was convicted, after bench trial, of armed robbery with a firearm and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. Evidence was sufficient for court to find Defendant possessed a firearm, as based on victim's testimony court could find that Defendant implicitly threatened him. Although no weapon was recovered, lack of physical evidence did not undermine victim's credibility that Defendant hit him with handle of gun. Defendant was properly tried as an adult,l as offense occurred prior to 2014, and he never fell within juvenile court's jurisdiction. Fee for PD Records vacated, as Defendant was represented by private counsel, and other fine should be vacated.  (FITZGERALD SMITH and MASON, concurring.)

Defendant, pro se at his jury trial and at his sentencing hearing, was convicted of murder with a firearm enhancement, and sentenced to 30 years with additional consecutive 60-year term for firearm enhancement. Court properly admonished Defendant before trial when he discharged his attorney and proceeded pro se. "Continuing waiver" rule did not apply. Defendant requested and received posttrial counsel, and court did not substantially comply with requirements of Rule 401(a) before accepting Defendant's waiver of his right to counsel for sentencing hearing. Defendant's focus on issues as to guilt, rather than relevant sentencing factors, at sentencing hearing indicates he was not equipped to represent himself then.(PIERCE and SIMON, concurring.)

Respondent, who had previously been convicted of sexually violent offenses, was found by a jury to be a sexually violent person and committed to DHS. Experts are not prohibited from relying on underlying behaviors manifested during prior offenses in diagnosis of a certain mental disorder. The question of whether weight of evidence and credibility of witnesses proved that Respondent was a sexually violent person was ultimately responsibility of jury. (REYES, concurring; GORDON, specially concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of first degree murder. State's improper accusation during cross-examination whether Defendant threatened to kill victim's family if victim told police that Defendant shot him, and admission of Defendant's prior attempted murder conviction, were reversible errors. (LAMPKIN, concurring; GORDON, specially concurring.)

Evidence to support Defendant's conviction of possession with intent to deliver, as Defendant and codefendant constructively possessed the drugs, although the drugs were in a different car, and Defendant was accountable for actions of his codefendant and another man. Court properly admitted coconspirator statements through that man's testimony. Sentence of 25 years was not excessive in light of criminal history of Defendant.(NEVILLE and SIMON, concurring.)

While in prison on 2 counts of predatory sexual assault of a child, Respondent stipulated that he was a sexually violent person. Appellate court does not have jurisdiction to address Respondent's motion to dismiss, as order that Respondent be committed to DHS for institutional care in a secure facility was not a final and appealable order. Court properly struck Respondent's habeas corpus petition, as delay in State's filing reexamination report could not be a ground for his immediate dismissal from custody.(PIERCE and SIMON, concurring.)