Criminal Law

Defendant appealed from the circuit court denial of his petition for post-conviction relief following a third-stage evidentiary hearing. Defendant argued that post-conviction counsel failed to comply with SCR 651(c) during second stage proceedings. The State conceded that post-conviction counsel did not file a Rule 651(c) certificate and that the record did not show that counsel complied with the rule’s requirements. The appellate court disagreed that reversal was necessary and affirmed, explaining that reversal was not required where the record showed that subsequent post-conviction counsel complied with the rule. (BOIE and McHANEY, concurring)

Defendant in a consolidated matter appealed from a circuit court order granting the State’s petition to deny pretrial release. Defendant argued on appeal that the State failed to prove that he committed a detainable offense on one of the cases, that the detention orders were duplicative and that one should be dismissed, and that a no-contact order imposed as a condition of detention was improper. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the circuit court did not err in determining that the defendant committed a qualifying offense, that subsequent petitions are only prohibited by the language of the Act when they are filed in the same case, not in a separately filed case, and that the language of the Act explicitly authorizes imposition of a no-contact provision. (KENNEDY, concurring and McLAREN, specially concurring)

Defendant appealed from a circuit court order continuing her pretrial detention under the Pre-Trial Fairness Act. Defendant argued on appeal that the State failed to demonstrate that no condition or combination of conditions could protect the community from the any real and present threat posed by her release and that the State failed to demonstrate that there were no conditions of release that would reasonably ensure defendant’s appearance. The appellate court reversed and remanded for new proceedings, finding that the trial court abused its discretion when the trial court failed to explain reasons why less restrictive conditions would not mitigate the risk to victims or of willful flight. (ODEN JOHNSON and HYMAN, concurring)

Defendant was convicted of nine counts, including two counts of aggravated domestic battery and two counts of violation of a domestic violence bail bond, and was sentenced to a term of five years in prison. Defendant appealed, arguing that his waiver of right to counsel was invalid because the SCR 401(a) admonishments were required to be given to him when he told the court he wanted to waive counsel and in this case the admonishments were given 26 days prior to the waiver. The trial court agreed and reversed defendant’s convictions and remanded for a new trial. (JORGENSEN and BIRKETT, concurring)

Defendant, who was arrested and detained prior to the enactment of the Pre-Trial Fairness Act, appealed from a circuit court order granting the State’s petition to deny pretrial release. Defendant argued on appeal that the State did not have the authority to file a petition to deny pretrial release under the timing requirements of the Act. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the State’s petition was properly considered because defendant had requested that the circuit court reconsider the conditions of his release. (MOORE, concurring and VAUGHAN, concurring)

Defendant, who was arrested and charged with unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon, appealed from a trial court order granting the State’s petition for pretrial detention. Defendant argued on appeal that the denial of pretrial release was error because the trial court failed to consider that evidence of the charged crime may have been obtained pursuant to an unlawful search and seizure and that the State failed to meet its burden of proving that he posed a real and present threat to the safety of any person or the community. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court properly considered the factors relating to pretrial detention and that the trial court’s determinations were not unreasonable in light of the circumstances, including defendant’s extensive criminal history. (HOWSE, concurring and ELLIS, specially concurring)

Defendant appealed from the judgment of the circuit court dismissing his successive post-conviction petition at the second stage. Defendant argued on appeal that his post-conviction counsel provided unreasonable assistance by failing to amend his pro se petition to address procedural bars to his claim. The appellate court, in its second consideration of this issue, found that post-conviction counsel was not unreasonable for failing to amend the petition because counsel argued at the hearing on the State’s motion to dismiss that the procedural bars did not apply to the defendant’s claim and because the trial court in its ruling correctly concluded that defendant’s claims were not procedurally barred. (McLAREN and SCHOSTOK, concurring)

Defendant filed a pro se post-conviction petition alleging that his natural life sentence was unconstitutional and his petition was dismissed after post-conviction counsel did not file a response and instead stood on the allegations contained in the pro se petition. Defendant argued on appeal that he rebutted the presumption that post-conviction counsel provided reasonable assistance by showing that counsel stood on a meritless petition rather than moving to withdraw or amending the petition. The supreme court affirmed, finding that defendant failed to rebut the presumption of reasonable assistance where there was no showing that post-conviction counsel knew that petitioner’s claim was frivolous or patently without merit. (THEIS, NEVILLE, OVERSTREET, HOLDER WHITE, CUNNINGHAM, and ROCHFORD, concurring)