Criminal Law

Respondent, age 16 at time of offense, pleaded guilty to aggravated battery for pushing his shoulder into chest of his high school assistant dean, and was sentenced to indeterminate sentence in Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice not to exceed 5 years or his 21st birthday, whichever came first. Respondent entitled to sentence credit for days taken into custody on offense for which sentence was imposed, and for days between oral pronouncement of sentence and arrival at DOJJ; but not for days in custody unrelated to offense for which sentenced.

(Court opinion corrected 3/25/10.) State established sufficient chain of custody to prove that substance that was tested and found to contain cocaine was same substance that was seized from crime scene. Defendant attempted to characterize his chain of custody challenge as attack on sufficiency of evidence, but such claim is evidentiary issue as to foundation, which is subject to waiver if not specifically objected to at trial and in posttrial motion.

(Court opinion modified 3/23/10.) Court failed to comply with Rule 431(b) requirements for voir dire, as jurors were never asked whether they understood and agreed that a defendant is not required to offer evidence, and his failure to testify cannot be held against him; advising venire en masse of Zehr principles, and delivering IPI instructions 2.03 and 2.04 as to principles, was not sufficient, and thus error affected fundamental fairness of proceeding.

Court's summary dismissal of Defendant's pro se postconviction petition, alleging claims of actual innocence of first-degree murder charge and ineffective assistance of counsel, comported with Hodges standard as lacking arguable basis in law or in fact. State did not withhold exculpatory statements of two persons, as statements were given 45 days after trial concluded, and prosecutor first learned of content of these statements, via phone call and re-interview, after trial had concluded. Defense counsel made strategic decisions on what witnesses to call, not to be second-guessed in competency determination. Attachments to petition were not sworn or notarized, contradicted by record, and lacking in specific detail, thus would not have affected the verdict.

Court deferred ruling on Defendant's motion in limine to bar his three prior convictions, brought per People v. Montgomery, per its "blanket policy" to defer ruling until after a defendant testifies. Record does not support finding of prejudice, because deferral could have made no difference in Defendant's decision not to testify; and Defendant forfeited his claim by failing to testify. Court admonished venire en masse of Zehr principles, and some raised their hands to address judge, but none stated any difficulty in understanding or accepting any of the four Zehr principles; this complied with Rule 431(b). No ineffective assistance of counsel, as counsel's manner of cross-examination of State's forensic scientist was matter of trial strategy; and no prejudice as evidence was overwhelmingly against Defendant.

Defendant, who was convicted of Class 2 felony and sentenced as Class X offender because of his criminal history, is subject to MSR term of 3 years which applies to Class X offenders, rather than to 2-year MSR term which applies to Class 2 offenders.