Criminal Law

(Court opinion corrected 3/14/16.) Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder in shooting death of his wife. Court entered maximum available sentence of 60 years, with fines and fees.  Defendant filed Section 2-1401 petition for relief from "void" judgment, arguing that because county clerk added mandatory $25 fine to his original sentence, his entire sentence was void. Based on Supreme Court's 2015 opinion in People v. Castleberry, there is no true voidness as alleged in Defendant's petition, but only a voidable $25 fine, which is no longer subject to collateral attack. So long as a Section 2-1401 petition challenges a judgment on voidness grounds, as did Defendant's petition, it is not subject to Section 2-1401's 2-year limitations period.(SCHOSTOK and SPENCE, concurring.)

Court's dismissal on the merits of Defendant's pro se petition which was, in substance, a Section 2-1401 petition for relief from judgment was premature, as it occurred before the expiration of State's 30 days to answer or otherwise plead. Although Defendant never affirmatively demonstrated insufficient service of petition, it is presumed that State was properly served. (SCHOSTOK and BIRKETT, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of delivery of less than one gram of a controlled substance (heroin) within 1,000 feet of a school, and sentenced to 13 years. Court failed to properly conduct preliminary Krankel hearing, by moving directly to merits of Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel without first determining whether sufficient facts were alleged to show possible neglect and deciding whether to appoint conflict counsel. Court denied Defendant his constitutional right to self-representation at posttrial proceedings that followed Krankel hearing; remanded for new proceedings oin motion for new trial and sentencing because Defendant invoked his right to represent himself. Given trial judge's prior rulings and comments to Defendant, remanded to a different trial judge for new preliminary Krankel hearing, for hearing on motion for new trial if necessary, and for sentencing if necessary.  (McBRIDE and COBBS, concurring.) 

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of 3 counts of first degree murder. In physical altercation with another male, Defendant's uncle punched victim, causing victim to fall straight back, with his head striking the concrete.  Defendant, then age 17, approached victim and tossed a cinder block onto victim's head. Postconviction counsel did not fail to provide reasonable representation by failing to conduct a search to find expert who would support Defendant's claims, to rebut testimony of State's expert physician who testified that cinder block, and not punch, caused victim's death. Section 5-130 of Juvenile Court Act, providing for automatic transfer to adult criminal court, does not violate 8th Amendment. (STEIGMANN and APPLETON, concurring.)

(Court opinion corrected 3/10/16.) Defendant and a codefendant were convicted, after separate jury trials, of first degree murder and attempted first degree murder, for shooting of 16-year-old and 15-year-old cousins in front of their home. Potential problems with identifications of 3 State witnesses were presented to jury.  Prior consistent statement of victim's brother to his father identifying Defendant and codefendant as the shooters was properly admitted when testified to by that witness as a statement of identification. Police officer's testimony as to the statement should not have been admitted, but any error was harmless. State's remarks in opening statements and closing arguments were questionable but do not rise ot level of clear and obvious error.(NEVILLE and SIMON, concurring.)

(Court opinion corrected 3/2/16.) Court properly entered second-stage dismissal of Defendant's petition for relief under Post-Conviction Hearing Act from his conviction, based on negotiated guilty plea, of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver. State is not required to disclose potential impeachment evidence before a defendant pleads guilty. Alleged misdeeds of 3 police officers did not involve facts of Defendant's case or any conduct in which Defendant participated; thus, State's failure to disclose to Defendant that these officers had been charged with criminal misconduct,did not invalidate his guilty plea. (SCHOSTOK and ZENOFF, concurring.)

Defendant, on a Saturday afternoon in summer, walked up to a car stopped at intersection and fired 4 shots into the vehicle, missing the driver but killing the passenger. Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of murder and aggravated discharge of a firearm, and court sentenced him to 55 years for murder and consecutive sentence of 7 years for firearm conviction. In stating, at sentencing, that it was a senseless act with a gun on a street on a Saturday, court did not improperly impose sentence based primarily on the fact that Defendant shot someone with a gun.  Court properly considered degree and gravity of conduct and nature and circumstances of offense, and record does not show that court improperly considered element of offenses as aggravating factor. Court weighed aggravating and mitigating factors and sentenced within permissible range.(FITZGERALD SMITH and PUCINSKI, concurring.)