Criminal Law

Court erred by dismissing Defendant's amended postcvonviction petition, as he had alleged a substantial showing of a constitutional violation. In his affidavit, appended to his amended petition, Defendant alleged that his counsel's performance was deficient in that he failed to accurately inform him of the possible penalties he faced on the State's charges; and that he was prejudiced thereby, as had he known of possibility of consecutive sentences requiring that he serve at least 85% of any sentence imposed, he would have accepted 18-year plea offer. Remanded with directions to conduct 3rd-stage evidentiary hearing. (TURNER and APPLETON, concurring.)

Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) statutory scheme does not infringe on Defendant's fundamental rights under substantive due process clause, is rationally related to goal of protecting the public, and does not violate procedural due process clause by failing to give the defendant a hearing on his likelihood to reoffend. Even if the SORA statutory scheme is "punishment", it is not a grossly disproportionate punishment for the defendant's crime.(CHAPMAN and STEWART, concurring.)

Court sentenced Defendant to 58 months imprisonment for failure to register as a sex offender. Sentence within court's discretion, considering Defendant's criminal history and his failure to attend court-ordered sex offender risk assessment. Circuit clerk improperly assed 3 fines ($10 "Arrestee's Medical" fine, a $10 "St Police Services" fine, and a $5 "Drug Court Program" fine). The challenged fine is voidable rather than void, and State lacked authority to request increase in amount of fine imposed. Clerks have no authority to impose fines, even mandatory fines. Remanded with directions to impose mandatory fines and apply any credit to which Defendant is entitled. (KNECHT and APPLETON, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of numerous offenses including first-degree murder. On murder conviction, court sentenced Defendant to 55 years and imposed additional 45-year term based on fact that Defendant personally discharged a firearm that caused death of a woman passenger in car in which Defendant was riding. Nowhere in Section 5-8-1(a)(1)(d)(iii) of Code of Criminal Procedure does it indicate that in imposing firearm add-on the court may consider only facts surrounding murder; court may consider any relevant sentencing factors. No double enhancement occurred by court considering Defendant's prior bad acts in assessing the 55-year sentence and the 45-year firearm add-on. Court considered prior offenses only in exercising its discretion to select appropriate terms within the ranges for each. (McLAREN and BIRKETT, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of being an armed habitual criminal (AHC), and unlawful use of a weapon by a felon (UUWF). Laws prohibiting felons from possessing firearms do not run afoul of the second amendment. The AHC and UUWF statutes are not unconstitutional on their face or as applied to Defendant. The UUWF statute does not provide any exceptions for persons convicted of nonviolent felonies. (CUNNINGHAM and HARRIS, concurring.)

(Correcting court designation.) Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of possession of contraband in a penal institution. Indictment alleged that he possessed a shank (a homemade weapon--here, a piece of plastic sharpened to a point) found in his waistband while at Cook County DOC. Court did not err in failing to instruct jury on defense of necessity. Defendant's testimony as to when another inmate threatened him was inconsistent. Possessing a weapon was not Defendant's sole reasonable alternative, and he failed to present any evidence as to when he acquired or made the shank.  Court properly limited testimony of witness whose testimony would have been cumulative.(GORDON and LAMPKIN, concurring.)

Defendant pled guilty to first degree murder. As postplea counsel failed to certify that he consulted with Defendant to ascertain his contentions of error in the guilty plea, remand for new postplea proceedings is necessary. The remedy for failure to strictly comply with Rule 604(d) is remand for filing of a new postplea motion(if Defendant so desires), a hearing on motion, and strict compliance with Rule 604(d).(O'BRIEN and SCHMIDT, concurring.)