Criminal Law

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of residential burglary, for stealing money from hotel room. Defendant admitted, at trial, that he had inadvertently stepped into occupied hotel room. Counsel was deficient in not requesting jury instruction on lesser-included offense supporting defense theory, such as criminal trespass to a residence. Defendant was prejudice by failure to request instruction, as IPI Criminal 14.14 would likely have been given to jury, and reasonable probability that jury would have convicted on lesser charge. (CUNNINGHAM and CONNORS, concurring.)

Defendant made negotiated guilty plea to first-degree murder. Defendant filed motion to withdraw plea; on remand, counsel filed three amended motions to withdraw plea with Rule 604(d) certificate of compliance. There is no evidence in third certificate, motion, or record that counsel ascertained Defendant's nonconstitutionally based contentions of error in sentence or entry of plea. Rule 604(d) certificate is insufficient as it must strictly comply with requirements of Rule. A circuit court is without authority to reconsider a defendant's negotiated-cap sentence when guilty plea has not been successfully withdrawn. (GOLDENHERSH and CHAPMAN, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted of burglary, based on theft of two vacuum cleaners from retail store. Evidence was sufficient to allow rational jury to reasonably infer that Defendant intended to commit theft when he entered store. Inventory of Defendant's possessions in booking revealed he had no cash, credit cards, or debit cards, he and a cohort orchestrated plan to steal items by cohort buying identical items, returning through different store entrance, and then giving his receipt to Defendant who showed receipt as he left store. (DONOVAN and SPOMER, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of aggravated criminal sexual abuse of nine-year-old boy. Court properly admitted Defendant's prior conviction for same offense, where victim was boy of same age and touching was of same private part, to rebut argument that Defendant touched victim with innocent intent. Court did not abuse discretion in finding that victim's prior statement that touching occurred was inconsistent with his trial testimony that he could not remember what happened on day of alleged touching. (APPLETON, concurring; COOK, dissenting.)

Defendant made non-negotiated plea of guilty to two counts of aggravated DUI. Attorney who represented Defendant at hearing on motion to reconsider his sentence had obligation to file a compliant Rule 604(d) certificate. Strict compliance is required so court has assurance that attorney presenting post-plea motion has a grasp of record and of Defendant's contentions of error. Verbal representations by attorney were insufficient to render certificate compliant. (McLAREN and BIRKETT, concurring.)

State filed petition per Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act, alleging that Respondent had been convicted of four sexually violent offenses, and diagnosed with two mental disorders which made it substantially probable that he would engage in future acts of sexual violence. After bench trial, court found Respondent a sexually violent person. Court properly denied Respondent's Section 2-619 motion to dismiss as Respondent failed to prove existence of plea agreement where State agreed not to seek Respondent's future civil commitment, and failed to prove collateral estoppel. Given expert's testimony that Respondent was not making progress in treatment and was not taking responsibility for his offenses, court was within its discretion in committing Respondent to secure facility for treatment. (CUNNINGHAM and CONNORS, concurring.)

(Vacating judgment of 3/31/10.) Medical transportation company, which received $3 million but inflated bills to the State to $6 million, was properly prosecuted and convicted of vendor fraud and theft, as corporation acts through and is responsible for acts of its agents. State proved that Defendant company's de facto officers, who controlled company, committed vendor fraud, theft and money laundering in course of their work on behalf of company, and evidence supports convictions of company for all three crimes. Acquittal of nominal owner does not conflict with convictions of company for crimes charged. Court should have considered value of services company provided in determining amount of restitution. (SALONE and STERBA, concurring.)