Criminal Law

This case presents question as to whether defendant is entitled to new sentence on felony murder charge in which prosecutor had served notice of intent to seek death penalty, where defendant claimed that trial court had abused its discretion in failing to give jury separate verdict forms for felony murder, and where jury eventually rendered general first degree murder verdict. Appellate Court, in affirming trial court's imposition of natural life sentence, found that while it was abuse of discretion not to give separate felony murder forms to jury, trial court properly sentenced defendant based on his guilt on felony murder charge. Moreover, jury's failure to specifically find that defendant had committed intentional murder did not render him ineligible for death penalty or sentence of natural life where trial court was finder-of-fact in determination that defendant was eligible for death penalty, and where record supported trial court's finding as to defendant's eligibility for death sentence.

This case presents question as to whether adult portion of juvenile's sentence imposed under section 5-810 of Juvenile Court Act was void because trial court had failed to conduct hearing on govt.'s extended jurisdiction juvenile prosecution motion that otherwise requires such hearings to be commenced within 30 or 60 days of date of said motion. Appellate Court, in affirming juvenile's stayed 23-year sentence, found that instant delayed hearing was valid since 30 and 60-day time frames set forth in section 5-810(2) are directory in spite of "shall" language contained in said section.

This case presents question as to whether police made proper search of defendant's luggage that was near defendant at time of his arrest at train station on charge of failure to pay child support. Appellate Court found that instant search was permissible as search incident to arrest where luggage was in defendant's immediate control during his arrest, and that officers were not required to relinquish control of luggage to third-party, who was standing near defendant. Appellate Court also rejected defendant's claim that search of his luggage was unreasonable under Gant, 556 US 332 even though he had been handcuffed and surrounded by three officers at time of search, and even though police could not have expected to find either evidence of his failure to pay child support inside his luggage or presence of any weapon inside container of hair gel where drugs were found that formed basis of instant criminal charge.

This case presents question as to whether govt. established defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt on charge of criminal sexual assault under section 12-13(a)(2) which required proof that defendant knew that 13-year-old victim was unable to understand nature of charged act or give knowing consent to sexual acts. Appellate Court, in affirming defendant's conviction, found that there was ample evidence to establish that defendant knew that victim could not knowingly consent to sexual acts where defendant was aware of victim's young age, as well as her maturity level, physical characteristics and emotional and mental strengths. Defendant, as well as dissenting justice, argued that reversal was required since defendant's conviction was based solely upon fact that victim was 13 years old.

This case presents question as to whether trial court properly dismissed at second stage of post-conviction proceeding defendant's petition alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue in underlying murder trial gross negligence defense under circumstances where defendant was seen shoving forearm into neck of 84-year-old victim, whose injuries resulted in victim receiving feeding tube, and where victim died two weeks later as result of infection caused by displacement of feeding tube. While defendant asserted in his post-conviction petition that gross medical negligence was superceding cause of victim's death, and that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate said defense, Appellate Court found that defendant had failed to establish any prejudice where outcome of trial would not have been different due to fact that evidence contained in affidavits from medical experts attached to post-conviction petition was cumulative to medical testimony presented at trial.

This case presents question as to whether defendant is entitled to withdraw his guilty plea where defendant's trial counsel failed to admonish defendant of legal immigration consequences if he pleaded guilty. Appellate Court, in reversing trial court's denial of defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea and noting that defendant had already been deported because of said plea, found that counsel's failure to advise defendant of deportation consequences resulted in prejudice to defendant and rendered his guilty plea involuntary since: (1) defendant need only show that he rationally would have gone to trial but for counsel's failure to advise him of risk of deportation; and (2) given certainty of defendant's deportation, defendant could have rationally decided to reject plea agreement rather than accept plea agreement that guaranteed deportation. (Dissent filed.)

This case presents question as to whether defendant is entitled to withdraw his guilty plea to charges of murder, home invasion and aggravated criminal sexual assault where defendant pleaded guilty in exchange for statutorily unauthorized concurrent sentences of 50, 30 and 30 years. Appellate Court found that although instant concurrent sentences were void, guilty plea itself was not void since defendant could receive proper sentence that totaled 50 years, and that appropriate remedy would be remand for new sentence. In his petition for leave to appeal, defendant argued that he is entitled to vacatur of guilty plea under People v. White, 2011 IL 109616.

This case presents question as to whether record adequately supported guilty verdict on charge of indirect criminal contempt relating to respondents' failure to comply with prior trial court order in building code violation proceeding that directed respondents not to occupy second floor of respondent's nightclub, which City claimed resulted in 21 dead and 51 injured patrons of respondent's nightclub after massive fight had broken out in said nightclub. Appellate Court, in rejecting City's proposed standard of review that would allow reversal only if evidence was against manifest weight of evidence, found that reversal of respondents' convictions was required where prior trial court order concerning occupancy of nightclub was ambiguous and did not provide respondents with reasonable details as to what actions were enjoined with respect to occupancy of said nightclub. Appellate Court also noted that respondents' alleged violation of trial court order had no causal relationship to injuries/deaths of respondents' patrons.