Criminal Law

Defendant appealed from his conviction of attempted first-degree murder of a police officer, challenging the State’s use of peremptory challenges to exclude five black venirepersons during jury selection in violation of the equal protection clause. In a prior appeal, the appellate court had remanded for second and third stage proceedings under Batson and on remand the trial court concluded that defendant failed to establish that the State acted with purposeful discrimination. The appellate court reversed defendant’s conviction, vacated his sentence, and ordered a new trial, finding that the record established the State used a peremptory challenge to exclude a venireperson based on race in violation of the equal protection clauses of the state and federal constitutions. (ODEN JOHNSON and HYMAN, concurring)

Defendant, who was charged with first-degree murder, concealment of a homicidal death, aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, and aggravated fleeing and eluding a police officer, appealed from an order of the trial court denying him pretrial release. Defendant argued that the trial court erred in detaining him because the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he was a danger to the community and that no combination of release conditions could mitigate the danger. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the State had met its burden of proof where the evidence established that defendant had repeatedly made efforts to avoiding accepting responsibility for actions that he now claims were an act of self-defense. (STEIGMANN and LANNERD, concurring)

Defendant, who was charged with aggravated battery and mob action, appealed from a trial court order denying him pretrial release, arguing that he was not charged with a detainable offense and that the evidence otherwise failed to establish that his detention was warranted. The appellate court affirmed, finding that mob action is a detainable offense as an “other felony” under the facts of the case, and that defendant failed to provide any supporting facts or argument on his additional claims of error and, as a result, did not meet his burden of persuasion. (LANNERD and DeARMOND, concurring)

Defendant was charged with one count of possession of a stolen motor vehicle and appealed from a trial court order continuing his pretrial detention. The appellate court affirmed, finding that it was not arbitrary or unreasonable for the trial court to conclude that continued detention was necessary where defendant had a lengthy history of disregarding rules and restrictions placed on him. (T. VAN TINE, concurring and REYES, specially concurring)

Defendant, who was charged with first-degree murder, appealed from a trial court order denying him pretrial release. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that the trial court erred because the record indicated the trial court was unaware of the legal principles surrounding charges of first degree murder when caused by a single punch by the defendant to the victim and remanded so that the trial court could consider whether defendant should be entitled to pretrial release under the applicable case law. (HOWSE and COBBS, concurring)

Defendant appealed from an order of the trial court denying pretrial release, arguing that the circuit court erred because defendant was not charged with a detainable offense as provided in section 110-6.1(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellate court reversed, finding the trial court erred because defendant, who was charged with aggravated assault, was not charged with a detainable offense. The appellate court remanded for a new hearing to allow the circuit court to consider the mandatory conditions for defendant’s pretrial release under section 110-10 and to impose any additional conditions necessary to ensure defendant’s appearance as required for the safety of the community. (WELCH and SHOLAR, concurring)

Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and two counts of attempted murder. The appellate court affirmed his convictions, remanded for a new sentencing hearing, and affirmed the new sentence imposed on remand. Defendant then filed a post-conviction petition, which the trial court summarily dismissed at the first stage. Defendant appealed, arguing that the petition must be advanced to the second stage both because the circuit court failed to rule on it within 90 days after it was filed and because the claims had merit. The appellate court affirmed. The supreme court allowed defendant’s leave to appeal and also affirmed, finding that the trial court properly calculated the date of filing under section 122-2.1 of the Post-Conviction Hearing Act and ruled on the petition within the required 90 days and that defendant did not state the gist of a constitutional claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to call two witnesses at trial because their testimony would not have changed the outcome of the trial. (NEVILLE, OVERSTREET, HOLDER WHITE, CUNNINGHAM, ROCHFORD, and O’BRIEN, concurring)

Defendant appealed after the trial court dismissed his post-conviction petition at the first stage and subsequently denied defendant’s motion to reconsider. The appellate court found that the petitioner’s motion to reconsider was untimely and, as a result, his notice of appeal was untimely and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The supreme court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court, finding that the defendant failed to comply with the proof-of-mailing requirements of SCR 12(b)(6) and the appellate court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on defendant’s untimely motion to reconsider. (THEIS, NEVILLE, HOLDER WHITE, CUNNINGHAM, ROCHFORD, and O’BRIEN, concurring)