Criminal Law

Defendant, who was charged with multiple offenses including armed robbery, armed violence committed with a dangerous weapon, and home invasion, appealed from a circuit court order granting the State’s petition to deny pretrial release. On appeal, the Office of the State Appellate Defender declined to file a memorandum pursuant to SCR 604(h). The appellate court affirmed, finding that the evidence clearly supported the circuit court’s determination that no set of release conditions could mitigate the threat defendant posed to the victims and the community. The appellate court further instructed that in appeals brought under the Pretrial Fairness Act, appellate attorneys are required to determine whether a defendant’s claims have merit and that counsel cannot file or continue to pursue frivolous appeals or claims within an appeal, which can be accomplished by filing an amended notice of appeal or a SCR 604(h) memorandum. (McLAREN and JORGENSEN, concurring)

Defendant was found guilty of 11 counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child and four counts of manufacturing child pornography and sentenced to 101 years in prison. At issue on appeal was whether defendant received unreasonable assistance of his retained post-conviction counsel because counsel labored under an actual conflict of interest at the first stage of proceedings. The appellate court agreed with defendant that he received unreasonable assistance of post-conviction counsel where counsel was operating under an actual conflict that caused counsel to fail to allege ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. (HUTCHINSON and BIRKETT, concurring)

Defendant pled guilty to two counts of unlawful use of a weapon and was ultimately sentenced to three years in prison for violating his probation. Defendant subsequently filed a petition for relief under section 2-1401 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to vacate his UUW conviction as a violation of his second amendment rights. The circuit court denied his petition and defendant appealed. The appellate court affirmed, finding that defendant’s facial challenge to section 24-1(a)(7)(ii) of the Criminal Code failed where he did not establish that there was no set of circumstances under which the statute would be valid. (LAVIN and PUCINSKI, concurring)

Defendant was arrested and charged with stalking and two counts of criminal damage to property and the trial court granted the State’s petition to detain under the Pre-Trial Fairness Act. Defendant appealed and argued that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the petition to detain. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that the evidence presented did not show that defendant continued to be a threat to the victim or that there were no conditions that could be placed on his release where charges were filed seven months after the incident giving rise to the charges, no additional incidents had occurred, and where defendant no longer lived in close physical proximity to the victim. (McDADE and HOLDRIDGE, concurring)

Defendant was found guilty of armed habitual criminal and appealed, arguing that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel for failing to move to suppress his arrest. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that the “scant” evidence presented did not establish probable cause for the search and arrest. (JOHNSON and C.A. WALKER, concurring)

Defendant, who was arrested and charged with multiple offenses including one count of armed violence, appealed from a trial court order denying him pretrial release, arguing that the State failed to prove that the proof was evident or the presumption great that defendant committed a detainable offense. The appellate court, using a clear and convincing evidence standard of review, affirmed. The court found that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence leading to the conclusion that defendant possessed illegal drugs and a handgun simultaneously prior to his arrest and that the trial court’s finding was not unreasonable, arbitrary or not based on the evidence presented. (REYES, concurring and R. VAN TINE, specially concurring)