Criminal Law

This case presents question as to whether trial court properly imposed enhanced sentence of 12 years on involuntary manslaughter charge arising out of death of girlfriend's two-year-old son. Appellate Court, in remanding case for new sentence hearing, found that enhancement under section 112A-3(3) concerning involuntary manslaughter of family or household member did not apply where record failed to show that defendant and victim shared common dwelling. Moreover, mere fact that defendant and girlfriend were involved in intimate relationship was insufficient to support imposition of enhancement.

This case presents question as to whether trial court properly dismissed on jurisdictional grounds defendant's successive 2-1401 post-judgment petitions relating to his criminal conviction. While state argued that instant dismissal was proper under Buschelman, 296 IllApp3d 35, where court found that trial court has jurisdiction to consider only one section 2-1401 petition, Appellate Court, in reversing trial court, found that there was nothing in Illinois law to suggest that party is limited jurisdictionally to one section 2-1401 petition.

This case presents question as to whether trial court properly denied defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea to 1st degree murder charge where trial court eventually imposed 28-year sentence that was below statutory minimum of 35-year sentence that included 15-year enhancement for use of firearm during charged offense. Appellate Court, in finding that motion to withdraw should have been granted, noted that trial court improperly advised defendant that he was subject to only 20 to 60 year potential sentence and found that trial court's failure to impose enhancement rendered sentence void and invalidated entire plea agreement.

This case presents question as to whether section 115-7.4 of Code of Criminal Procedure, which allowed trial court to admit evidence of defendant's prior acts of domestic battery against different victim in defendant's domestic battery trial, is constitutional. Appellate Court, in finding section 115-7.4 is constitutional, rejected defendant's contention that admission of said evidence violated his due process and equal protection rights, where Court noted that defendant was given notice of state's intent in introducing said evidence, and where trial court made determination that said evidence was relevant and that its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect. (Dissent filed.)

This case presents question as to whether defendant's 6th Amendment right to counsel had attached by time police conducted in-person lineup where, by time of lineup, police had obtained approval for felony charges against defendant and had obtained arrest warrant, and where defendant had been arrested and jailed for eight days without being brought before judge pursuant to section 109-1 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Appellate Court, in finding that defendant's 6th Amendment rights had not attached by time of lineup, noted that defendant had not been arraigned until two days after instant lineup. Ct. further found that although delay in bringing defendant before judge was unusual, no attachment occurred by virtue of said delay.