Criminal Law

Defendant and two other persons were wheeling a City of Chicago garbage can down a residential street at 2:30 a.m., and were stopped by police patrol officer who found articles of clothing, with tags on them, inside the can. Under totality of circumstances, scene would objectively give rise to a suspicion sufficient to meet requirement of reasonableness; encounter was within permissible and constitutional boundaries and Defendant had no standing to object to search of garbage can. Defendant who has been lawfully seized has no reasonable expectation of privacy in contents of a city-owned garbage can in his possession. Requisite intent for burglary satisfied, under accountability theory, as Defendant admitted that two men inside clothing store were passing clothing to him through hole above rear door of store. (FITZGERALD SMITH and LAVIN, concurring.)

Order correcting mittimus is not equivalent to "date on which sentence is imposed" and thus Defendant's motion to correct mittimus does not toll 30-day limitations period for filing motion to withdraw guilty plea. Admonition of trial judge at plea hearing, after finishing general description of range of penalties for each offense, that any sentence of imprisonment would carry with it a term of MSR was sufficient to inform Defendant of MSR. (GOLDENHERSH and DONOVAN, concurring.)

Court must hold hearing on Defendant's ability to pay public defender fee, and if hearing not held within 90 days of final order disposing of case at trial level, case must be remanded for hearing. Clerk has no authority to levy even mandatory fines that are not authorized the court, as imposition of a fine is a judicial act. The fact that a court may impose MSR does not prevent court from imposing indeterminate MSR term as part of sentence. (JORGENSEN and HUDSON, concurring.)

(Court opinion corrected 7/16/10.) Court refused to bar cross-examination of witness regarding a phone call threatening her life if she implicated Defendant before grand jury. Defendant's choice to not call that witness to testify doomed his claim of error, because to divine how court would have ruled was purely conjectural; and absence of this testimony did not preclude Defendant from corroborating his affirmative defense. Court properly admitted evidence of Defendant's prior conviction for aggravated discharge of a firearm, as his self-defense claim placed his credibility in issue. Court properly refused second-degree murder provocation-passion instruction, as Defendant offered no testimony that he felt threatened by victims. (FITZGERALD SMITH and LAVIN, concurring.)