Criminal Law

Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of failure to report in person within 90 days of his last date of registry and failure to report his change of address within 3 days as a registered sex offender. Sex Offender Registration Act imposes a separate and additional duty on those sex offenders specifically adjudicated "dangerous" or violent", and legislature intended to distinguish a duty to report that does not simply duplicate the registration requirement. Registration requires the creation of a signed writing. Section 6 does not mention a registration requirement, and thus a defendant may satisfy his duty simply by reporting. Conviction for failure to report address change within 3 days is affirmed.Defendant's prior conviction for aggravated criminal sexual assault was improperly used as both an element of the offense and as a basis for imposing a mandatory Class X sentence, thus resulting in improper double enhancement. (LIU and HARRIS, concurring.)

Defendant's postconviction petition supports a substantial showing that he was denied effective assistance of counsel in alleging that trial counsel failed to file a notice of appeal. Defendant alleged that he never told counsel that he did not want to appeal, he thought one was pending, and he expected and wanted an appeal, and explicitly asked trial counsel to take steps to prepare an appeal. Allegations, if proven at evidentiary hearing, would demonstrate that trial counsel's performance was deficient. Defendant's petition sets forth a substantial showing of a constitutional violation and thus Defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing. (McBRIDE and HOWSE, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, via accountability theory of 1993 first degree murder and attempted armed robbery committed when Defendant was age 16. As Defendant had previously convicted of first degree murder, he was sentenced to mandatory term of life imprisonment on his murder conviction and 15 years imprisonment on his attempted armed robbery conviction. Defendant's sentence is not void, and Defendant failed to file his Section 2-1401 petition within 2 years, and it is thus untimely. Sentence was authorized by statute and was required at time of Defendant's sentencing. (FITZGERALD SMITH and PUCINSKI, concurring.)

The "void sentence rule", which states that a sentence which does not conform to a statutory requirement is void, is no longer valid. Recent Illinois Supreme court decisions holding that voidness does not speak to mere error, but to lack of jurisdiction, have undermined the rationale behind the rule. Rule 604(a) does not permit State to appeal a sentencing order. Thus, State could not have cross-appealed in the appellate court on this issue, as a reviewing court acquires no greater jurisdiction on cross-appeal than it could on appeal. (GARMAN, FREEMAN, THOMAS, KILBRIDE, KARMEIER, and THEIS, concurring.)

Circuit court erred in declaring certain sections of the aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (AUUW) statute unconstitutional. The AUUW statute has an additional location element, that the person is knowingly carrying on his person or in any vehicle, outside the home, a firearm without having been issued a valid FOID Card. Thus, the offense of AUUW and a violation of the FOID Card Act are not identical. Tthere can be no proportionate penalty violation, as the location element in AUUW, which is absent from the FOID Card Act, is an additional element that must be proved to establish a violation of AUUW. (GARMAN, THOMAS, KILBRIDE, KARMEIER, BURKE, and THEIS, concurring.)

Petitioner pled guilty to one count of battery, and in exchange, State dropped additional charges of domestic battery and aggravated battery of a child.Petitioner claims that State's Attorney told him that in exchange for his plea, his FOID card would not be revoked. After plea was entered, State Police revoked his FOID card because of his conviction. Petitioner filed petition seeking to overturn decision of State Police, but served process only on State's Attorney's office. Petitioner's motion to correct a misnomer in caption of petition is denied, as misnomer statute does not apply. Court erred in finding that it had discretion to overturn the State Police's decision to revoke Petitioner's FOID card. The amended FOID Act no longer allows courts to order State Police to issue a FOID card if the petitioner is prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal law. Thus, FOID Act prohibits court from ordering State Police to issue a FOID card. (CATES and GOLDENHERSH, concurring.)

Defendant pled guilty to vehicular burglary and was sentenced to 2 years probation. Defendant was later arrested for allegedly burglarizing a vehicle, and State filed petition for violation of probation.Defendant sufficiently raised a pro se claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, with sufficient specificity. Defendant's underlying claim was that officer lied on the witness stand during violation of probation hearing, because event query placed officer's arrival at scene of arrest much later than when Defendant was actually arrested, and trial counsel failed to subpoena event query as Defendant requested. Remanded for court to conduct proper Krankel hearing. (FITZGERALD SMITH and PUCINSKI, concurring.)

Defendant appeals circuit court's sua sponte denial of his motion to withdraw guilty plea and vacate sentence. Defendant's motion was untimely filed and thus circuit court lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion. Defendant failed to meet requirements of amended Rule 12(b)(4) because his verification did not contain complete address to which motion was to be delivered. Thus, his Section 1-1-9 verification was insufficient to establish that his motion was mailed to court on a timely date. Remand for further postplea proceedings is unwarranted.(CARTER and WRIGHT, concurring.)