Criminal Law

Defendant was convicted after bench trial of intentional and knowing first-degree murder and sentenced to 22 years imprisonment. Defendant allegedly asphyxiated and killed victim, who he found in his apartment with Defendant's girlfriend, by putting his foot on victim's throat. Witness testified that Defendant stood next to victim, and held him to the ground by placing his foot in the neck area. Court misconstrued witness's testimony as to Defendant's actions, victim was significantly larger than Defendant, and there was no evidence of how long Defendant applied pressure to victim's neck. Evidence was insufficient to establish intent to kill or a conscious awareness that his conduct was practically certain to cause a particular result; thus, offense reduced to involuntary manslaughter. (CAHILL and R.E. GORDON, concurring.)

Defendant was found guilty of aggravated battery to a peace officer and one count of mob action after jail melee allegedly started by Defendant. Insufficient evidence of, and no prejudice from, judge's bias against Defendant. No prejudice to Defendant by jurors accidentally leaving some clean jury instructions in the jury room, as the jury received the proper forms during deliberations. Evidence was sufficient to prove that Defendant, and those he was accountable for, committed several acts in support of each of Defendant's convictions. Multiple strikes are multiple acts; Defendant struck jail officer more than one time and grabbed him around the waist so other detainees could continue to strike him, and other officers were struck repeatedly by the other detainees involved. (QUINN and STEELE, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, and sentenced as a mandatory Class X felon. Defendant contends that he was erroneously assessed a $10 fee for the arrestee medical costs fund because he was not injured and was not provided medical treatment while in custody. Medical fund fee is applicable to Defendants who were not injured or treated in custody under the preamendment statute, thus fee was properly assessed. (J. GORDON, concurring; R.E. GORDON, specially concurring.)

Defendant was convicted of robbery and aggravated battery, and ordered to pay an undelineated $243 in fines, court costs, fees and penalties, and a $200 DNA assessment. The legislature intended petitions for the revocation of fines to be freestanding actions, collateral to the original action and to whatever is pending on appeal, and intended there to be no time limitation on the filing of petitions to revoke fines. (ZENOFF and BURKE, concurring.)

Defendant pled guilty to predatory criminal sexual assault and was sentenced to 24 years imprisonment. Defendant filed motion to reduce sentence, but counsel did not file a certificate of compliance with Rule 604(d). Defendant may, but is not required to under the circumstances file a new Rule 604(d) motion in order to adequately present Defendant's objections to his sentence. A new hearing on the motion should be held, and strict compliance with Rule 604(d) is required. (CHAPMAN and SPOMER, concurring.)

(Court opinion corrected 9/28/10.) Defendant pled guilty to intimidation and criminal damage to property, pursuant to partially negotiated plea; Defendant repeatedly stabbed the top of her boyfriend's ex-girlfriend's convertible, and waved a knife at them both, and was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of 10 and 6 years. Court did not abuse its discretion in length of sentences imposed, as it considered aggravating factors of Defendant's criminal history, including previous altercation where she set fire to boyfriend's ex-girlfriend's car, and mitigating factors that Defendant and her boyfriend have a newborn child. Court did not err in ordering sentences to run consecutive to any punishment handed out for MSR violation in an unrelated case, even though such punishment had not yet been ordered. Order for restitution vacated as court never admonished Defendant that she could be required to pay restitution, and her sentence was more onerous than the admonishments indicated that it would be. (HOLDRIDGE, concurring; SCHMIDT, concurring in part and dissenting in part.)

Defendant was convicted of three counts of perjury and one count of disregarding the Election Code, as to forged signatures on petitions to place candidate on ballot for township assessor. Evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions, as court made reasonable determinations as to credibility of witnesses and reasonably applied compelling circumstantial evidence that Defendant did not actually believe that his attestations on petitions were true. Witness testified as to Defendant's conflicting statements as to his viewing of signatures when she expressed her concern about notarizing petitions. (O'MALLEY and JORGENSEN, concurring.)