Criminal Law

Defendant, who was charged with one count of home invasion and one count of domestic battery, appealed from a trial court order denying him pretrial release, arguing that the trial court erred because the State failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions of release would mitigate the real and present threat he posed to the community. The appellate court applied an abuse of discretion standard of review and affirmed, finding that the trial court did not err in denying pretrial release where the defendant had a history of noncompliance while on probation and that defendant’s recent mental health diagnosis and his stated intention to seek treatment did not negate the impact of the defendant’s past actions. (LANNERD and VANCIL, concurring)

Defendant, who was charged with attempted first degree murder and aggravated battery, appealed from a pretrial detention order entered by the trial court arguing that the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or set of conditions could mitigate any threat he posed. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court did not err when it found that the defendant’s failure to follow his doctor’s directives regarding treatment for mental health issues indicated that the defendant was not likely to follow any conditions placed on him by the court. (BRENNAN, specially concurring and McDADE, dissenting)

Defendant appealed from a trial court order revoking his pretrial release, arguing that the trial court erred when it ordered him detained because the State did not prove that less restrictive means were insufficient to prevent him from being charged with subsequent offenses. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court did not err when it determined that less restrictive means were not sufficient where defendant was charged with multiple firearm-related offenses in a period of less than two years and where these incidents were just as likely to occur at defendant’s home if the trial court ordered electronic monitoring. (McBRIDE and ELLIS, concurring)

Defendant appealed from a trial court order imposing jail time as a sanction for the violation of a pretrial condition of release. The appellate court, however, dismissed the appeal, finding that it lacked jurisdiction as there was no basis for bringing the appeal on an interlocutory basis under the Code of Criminal Procedure or Illinois Supreme Court Rules. (ODEN JOHNSON and TAILOR, concurring)

Defendant, who was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct, appealed from a trial court order revoking his pretrial release after he was subsequently charged with domestic battery on multiple separate occasions. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the record established that defendant was given multiple opportunities to remain free from incarceration with pretrial release conditions, but each time violated the terms of his pretrial release and where the criminal charges against defendant were increasing in severity. (McHANEY, concurring and WELCH, specially concurring)

Defendant appealed from his conviction for unlawful possession of methamphetamine arguing that he appeared pro se at critical states of the proceedings without a valid waiver of counsel. The appellate court vacated and remanded, finding that defendant appeared pro se at multiple stages during the proceedings without a valid waiver of counsel and that these were critical stages of the proceedings because defendant provided the State with potentially incriminating statements for “seemingly no legitimate strategic purpose” and defendant was required to provide discovery to the State. (ALBRECHT and DAVENPORT, concurring)

Defendant was found guilty of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, a Class X felony. Prior to sentencing defendant moved to be sentenced for the less severe Class 2 felony offense of aggravated criminal sexual abuse, arguing that the greater penalty for predatory criminal sexual assault of a child violated the proportionate penalties clause because the two offenses contained identical elements but disparate sentences. The circuit court denied the motion and the appellate court affirmed. The supreme court also affirmed, finding that the two offenses do not contain identical elements because the elements of sexual contact and sexual conduct do not mean the same thing. (THEIS, NEVILLE, OVERSTREET, CUNNINGHAM, and ROCHFORD, concurring. HOLDER WHITE took no part in the decision.)

Defendant was convicted of aggravated battery in a public place and sentenced to 42 months in prison. On appeal, defendant argued that he should not have been tried in absentia where, at the time the court admonished him, he had not been arraigned and had not entered a not-guilty plea and/or the court’s admonishments did not advise him that a failure to appear at trial would constitute a waiver of his right to confront and cross-examine witnesses. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that defendant did not receive the proper admonishment under section 113-4(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure. (MULLEN, concurring and BIRKETT, dissenting)