Criminal Law

Defendant appealed from his conviction for aggravated domestic battery. On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted proof of prior acts of domestic violence and that his trial counsel’s performance was unreasonable for not requiring a medical expert to testify that the victim’s wounds could have been caused by an accident and, finally, that no reasonable fact finder could have found the evidence sufficient to conclude that he caused great bodily harm. The appellate court affirmed, finding that defendant had failed to raise the issue regarding the prior convictions and, even if he had, the trial court used the proper balancing test and that the evidence did not support defendant’s arguments regarding the sufficiency of the evidence and performance of counsel. (HYMAN and C.A. WALKER, concurring)

Defendant appealed from a trial court order granting the State’s petition to revoke pretrial release, arguing among other things that the trial court violated his statutory right to an in-person hearing. The appellate court vacated the trial court’s order and remanded for a new hearing, finding that defendant had a right under section 110-6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to be physically present for the hearing on the State’s petition and that the trial court did not find any of the exceptions to that requirement were applicable under the facts of this case. (BRENNAN and PETERSON, concurring)

Defendant appealed from a trial court order granting the State’s petition to deny him pretrial release. Defendant, who was arrested and granted pretrial release with electronic monitoring before the Act went into effect but who had not yet been released, argued on appeal that the State’s motion was untimely and lacked merit. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that the State’s petition was untimely because defendant was a detainee who was ordered released but who had not actually been released and that the State was not allowed under the Act to petition to detain a person who was already in jail. (LAMPKIN and D.B. WALKER, concurring)

Defendant, who elected to proceed pro so, was convicted of multiple counts of aggravated domestic battery and domestic battery as well as violation of domestic violence bond bail and criminal damage to property and was sentenced to a total of five years in prison. On appeal, defendant argued that his waiver of counsel was invalid because the SCR 401(a) admonishments were given nearly a month before he waived counsel and not at the time of the waiver. The appellate court agreed, reversed his conviction, and remanded for a new trial. (JORGENSEN and BIRKETT, concurring)

Defendant appealed from an order of the circuit court granting the State’s petition to detain him prior to trial. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that the trial court abused its discretion when it granted the State’s petition because it did not articulate why the defendant was unlikely to comply with any conditions of release and that the court inappropriately took a monetary-bail-or-nothing approach because this approach did not apply the statutory criteria for detention. (HARRIS and DOHERTY, concurring)

Defendant appealed from the summary dismissal of his post-conviction petition at the first stage, arguing that he stated the gist of a constitutional claim that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue on direct appeal that his concurrent sentence of 50 years was excessive. The appellate court agreed and reversed and remanded for second-stage proceedings. (ODEN JOHNSON and HYMAN, concurring)

Defendant was found guilty of unlawful use of a weapon by a felon and was sentenced to five years in prison. On appeal, defendant argued that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to him because it improperly infringed on his right to bear arms by barring him from possession a firearm despite having only non-violent felony convictions. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the law was not unconstitutional as applied where defendant had 14 past felony convictions, including for robbery and aggravated battery. (ODEN JOHNSON and TAILOR, concurring)

Defendant, who was convicted of a shooting death several decades ago, made allegations to the Illinois Torture Inquiry and Relief Commission. The commission supported his claim and the circuit count appointed a special state’s attorney. The circuit court dismissed the proceedings without holding an evidentiary hearing and defendant appealed, arguing the circuit court erred in dismissing the claim without an evidentiary hearing and when it refused to remove the special state’s attorney due to an actual conflict of interest. The appellate court agreed and reversed and remanded with instructions to hold an evidentiary hearing and to appoint a different special state’s attorney because the potential for conflicting loyalties. (C.A. WALKER, concurring and TAILOR, concurring in part and dissenting in part)

Defendant appealed from a circuit court order granting the State’s petition to deny pretrial release, arguing that the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that defendant posed a threat if released and that no conditions could mitigate that threat. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the record supported the circuit court’s finding that defendant posted a threat based on his history and characteristics, which included six prior prison sentences including three for violent felonies, as well as that there was a low likelihood that defendant would comply with any conditions if he were released. (ELLIS and COBBS, concurring)