Criminal Law

Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of aggravated battery, and sentenced him to probation and 30 days in jail and restitution. Evidence was sufficient to support court's finding that Defendant did not act in self-defense in continuing to punch victim repeatedly as he lay on the ground in bar fight, as court could find that Defendant did not reasonably believe that victim created a danger to him. No abuse of discretion in sentencing, as maximum sentence was five years. Restitution order vacated, and remanded, as trial court was required to consider Defendant's ability to pay in setting time for payment. (McDADE and WRIGHT, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of direct criminal contempt of court and sentenced to 20 years incarceration. Defendant was in DOC custody when called to testify per writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum in a second double murder trial in which another person was the accused. (Defendant had not been called to testify at first trial.) During trial, at conclusion of which jury returned verdict of guilty, Defendant asserted his fifth amendment right and refused to testify. Defendant had extensive criminal history, including long periods of incarceration, and his refusal to testify was clearly calculated to hinder or obstruct court's administration of justice. Defendant was aware of possible consequences as State requested 20-year sentence in its contempt petition. (WRIGHT, concurring; HOLDRIDGE, dissenting.)

Court granted Defendant's motion to suppress evidence in prosecution for possession of cannabis with intent to deliver, suppressing admissions made by Defendant and contraband seized during traffic stop, for suspected seatbelt violation, of vehicle in which Defendant was a passenger. Defendant was questioned while in custody without receiving Miranda warnings and waiving right against self-incrimination and right to counsel. By the time Defendant confessed to her possession of cannabis, her detention was no longer "ordinary" traffic stop, and stop had become a full drug search. (STEIGMANN and POPE, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted of aggravated criminal sexual assault and murder. As offenses were committed during single course of conduct, court should have imposed consecutive sentences, and thus concurrent sentences are void, as statutory requirements for mandatory consecutive sentences apply. Remand for resentencing is appropriate remedy. Plea agreement, taken as a whole, is not contrary to statutory authority and thus not void, even though sentence imposed in implementation of that agreement was void. (MURPHY, concurring; QUINN, specially concurring.)

(Reconsidering 3/31/11 decision per Supreme Court direciton.) Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of two counts of unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon, based upon possession of a handgun and possession of the firearm ammunition inside that handgun. Through amendment, legislature specifically authorized multiple convictions for simultaneous violations of the statute. Defendant was previously ordered to submit DNA sample and pay fee, and thus order imposing DNA fee is void. Court system fee must be vacated because convictions were not for violations of Vehicle Code. Court services fee was properly assessed, as statute permits it to be assessed upon any judgment of conviction. County Jail Medical Costs fee is to be collected regardless of whether a defendant incurs injury or requires treatment while in custody. Mental health court fee and Children's Advocacy Center charge are fines, to which a defendant is entitled to apply presentence credit. (GARCIA, concurring; R.E. GORDON, dissenting.)

Defendant was convicted of burglary after bench trial. As court had already denied trial counsel's motion to reconsider sentence, Defendant's pro se motion to reconsider sentence was a repetitious and successive postsentencing motion and not properly filed per Rule 606(b), and was not accompanied by notice of motion and thus not brought to court's attention within reasonable time. Thus, pro se motion did not invalidate previously-filed notice of appeal, and thus court was without authority to consider motion. State's participation in proceedings, without objecting to court's jurisdiction, did not revest court with jurisdiction, as participation was not inconsistent with merits of final judgment. (R. GORDON and GARCIA, concurring.)