Criminal Law

(Court opinion corrected 12/3/15.) Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of armed robbery with a handgun. Multiple suspects in same lineup does not render lineup impermissibly suggestive. Witness, who positively identified Defendant in lineup 8 days after robbery had ample opportunity to view Defendant, and paid much attention to details. Thus, witness' identification testimony was reliable. Court erred in imposing $150 public defender fee without holding sufficient hearing to determine Defendant's financial circumstances and ability to pay.(NEVILLE and SIMON, concurring.)

Defendant filed postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel in that counsel failed to impeach detective with a prior inconsistent statement and failed to seek to admit as substantive evidence the police report containing prior inconsistent statement; and that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise those issues on direct appeal. Trial counsel did impeach detective to the extent possible.Decisions whether to emphasize the difference between what detective said on direct and what he admitted on cross, and whether to offer police report as substantive evidence, were issues of trial strategy.(SCHOSTOK and BIRKETT, concurring.)

Respondent, a sexually violent person committed to Department of Human Service, filed petition for discharge and motion to appoint an expert, when circuit court properly denied as untimely.Respondent has refused to participate in reviews and in sex offender treatment over the past year. Petitions for discharge may be filed only in limited period of time, which is after receiving notice of Respondent's right to petition at time of yearly reexamination, but before the probable cause hearing.  Respondent's petition was untimely, as he filed it after the probable cause hearing. Respondent's request was not a valid postjudgment motion, as it was not directed at the previous judgment. (GOLDENHERSH and CHAPMAN, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted of 1 year of first-degree murder and 2 counts of attempted murder, and sentenced to total 105 years.  Sentence was well within  statutory guidelines and was not the product of any error by court. Although Defendant was age 19 at time of offense, and had minimal criminal record, court is not required by law to consider a defendant's age in sentencing.(LAVIN and PUCINSKI, concurring.)

Defendant was immediately sentenced to 6 years of imprisonment after his conviction for unlawful delivery of a controlled substance, but mittimus was stayed for 5 1/2 months while he was allowed on bond to receive treatment.  Mittimus issued when Defendant failed to comply with terms of his bond. Court was enforcing its judgment, and retained jurisdiction to do so, when mittimus issued. Case remanded for further postplea proceedings, as defense counsel's Supreme Court Rule 604(d) certificate was inadequate as defense counsel failed to certify that he had consulted with Defendant about any possible contentions of error in his guilty plea and failed to certify that he had examined report of proceedings of plea.(O'BRIEN, concurring; WRIGHT< specially concurring.)

Defendant was convicted of domestic battery and other charges, including residential burglary of his girlfriends's apartment which Defendant claims was his residence too.  Evidence established that at the time of the alleged offense, Defendant resided in the apartment, and thus evidence did not establish he entered "the dwelling of another". Due to Defendant's history of domestic violence, court sentenced him to extended, 5-year term for domestic battery, a Class 4 felony.  As residential burglary conviction is reversed, Defendant's challenge to sentence as in violation of extended-term sentencing statute no longer exists. (PIERCE and SIMON, concurring.)

(Court opinion corrected 11/30/15.) Court properly dismissed Defendant's postconviction petition, as he failed to make a substantial showing of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's failure to advise him of deportation consequences of his guilty plea. Any prejudice that Defendant may have suffered as a result of counsel's failure was cured by trial court's strict adherence with provisions of Section 113-8 of Code of Criminal Procedure, advising him that if he is not a U.S. citizen that conviction may have consequences of deportation. The fact that Defendant pled guilty while being informed by court of risk of deportation belied the Defendant's claim that his decision would have been different if he had been told that the risk was a certainty. (McBRIDE and GORDON, concurring.)