PENDING

AGGRAVATED BATTERY

Appeal, 1st Dist., No. 86871. People v. Cooper.

This case presents question of whether record contained sufficient evidence to support guilty verdict on charge of aggravated battery with firearm on theory that defendant, who did not shoot victim, nevertheless engaged in common design or community of unlawful purpose with co-defendant shooter. Appellate Court found record contained sufficient evidence of common design, even though there was no evidence of prior deliberation by defendant with shooter, since defendant was in same gang as shooter and fired gun, along with others, in direction of victim. (Rule 23 Order.)

People v. Crespo. Appeal, 1st Dist., No. 86556.

This case presents question of whether defendant properly convicted of both armed violence and aggravated battery. App. Ct., in rejecting defendant's argument that aggravated battery conviction should be vacated because both convictions were based upon same act, found both convictions to be proper since multiple stabs wounds received by victim constituted separate acts. Rule 23 Order.

APPELLATE PROCEDURE

People v. Wright. Appeal, 1st Dist., No. 87116.

This case presents question of whether App. Ct., after reversing defendant's convictions for failing to keep vehicle records and possession of title without complete assignment, properly remanded case to trial court for non-evidentiary hearing to reconsider findings. App. Ct. rejected defendant's argument in petition for rehearing that proper remedy would be remand for new trial.

ARMED VIOLENCE

People v. Smith. Appeal, 3rd Dist., No. 87103

This case presents question of whether armed violence statute applied in situation where unloaded gun was thrown out of window seconds before arrival of police and where defendant's unlawful possession of controlled substance was based on constructive possession only? App. Ct. found that because determination of whether defendant was armed with dangerous weapon for purposes of armed violence statute does not depend on whether defendant was armed at time of arrest, record supported armed violence conviction where record showed defendant was able to locate and have access to gun in few seconds between arrival of police and their approach to door of residence where drugs were found. (Rule 23 Order.)

DOUBLE JEOPARDY

Appeal, 4th Dist., No. 88224. People v. Carter.

This case presents question of whether trial ct. properly vacated, sua sponte, oral judgment of acquittal on driving with suspended license charges where acquittal had been announced on prior day pursuant to defendant's post-trial motion for acquittal? App. Ct. found that trial court could reconsider and vacate its oral acquittal and order new trial without offending double jeopardy principles.

DRUG OFFENSES

Appeal, 2nd Dist., No. 86888. People v. Hagberg.

This case presents question of whether field test alone can be sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that substance tested is controlled substance. Appellate Court determined that because field tests lack reliability necessary to make their results proof beyond a reasonable doubt, defendant's conviction required reversal because evidence failed to demonstrate reliability of field test conducted in instant case.

Appeal, 4th Dist., No. 86953. People v. McClanahan.

This case presents question of whether sec. 115-15 of Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides for admissibility of lab report in criminal cases concerning controlled substance violations if report tendered to defendant and defendant fails to object to use of said report at least 7 days prior to trial, violated confrontational clause when report used as evidence at trial. Appellate Court found no violation where defendant waited until 3 days prior to trial to make demand for presence of preparer of report.

GUILTY PLEA

Appeal, 2nd Dist., No. 85313. People v. Lumzy.

This case presents question of whether defendant is required to file motion to withdraw guilty plea when filing motion to reconsider his sentence where defendant and State had not agreed upon sentence as part of plea. Trial court found that defendant had entered into negotiated plea which required motion to withdraw plea in order to appeal sentence. Appellate Court found that defendant had not entered into negotiated plea because trial court had discretion to impose length of sentence, and thus defendant could file motion to reconsider sentence without filing motion to withdraw guilty plea. (Rule 23 Order.)

JURY INSTRUCTION

People v. Millsap. Appeal, 1st Dist., No. 87076.

This case presents question of whether trial ct. properly gave accountability instruction in response to note jury sent out even though theory of accountability was not pursued by State during trial? Jury's note asked whether accomplice was "just as guilty as offender who caused injury", and App. Ct. found instruction appropriate where record contained evidence from which jury could have concluded second offender present and instruction adequately answered jury's question. (Rule 23 Order.)

LINEUPS

People v. Bolden. Appeal, 1st Dist., No. 87117.

This case presents question of whether trial ct. erred by denying defendant's motion to suppress pre-arrest identification where police refused to permit retained counsel to watch lineup after defendant, who was not under arrest, voluntarily agreed to come to police station to participate in lineup on condition that counsel could watch. The App. Ct., however, found that defendant was not entitled to have counsel present at lineup since defendant's 6th Amendment right to counsel had not yet attached. (Dissent filed.) (Rule 23 Order.)

MOTION TO SUPPRESS

Appeal, 1st Dist., No. 88323. People v. Villalobos. This case presents question of whether trial ct. properly denied defendant's motion to suppress written statement obtained during murder investigation after defendant had been arrested and incarcerated on unrelated charge and after defendant signed and filed appearance form during bond hearing on unrelated charge? According to defendant, general language in appearance form meant that he invoked his 5th Amendment right to have counsel present during any questioning, including any subsequent custodial interrogation on unrelated offenses. App. Ct., however, affirmed trial ct's denial of motion to suppress. (Rule 23 Order.)

MURDER

Appeal, 1st Dist., No. 86871. People v. Cooper.

This case present question of whether Appellate Court may remand case to trial court for further consideration of whether state sufficiently proved defendant guilty of murder under doctrine of felony murder where Appellate Court found record lacked sufficient evidence to support guilty verdict of murder on accountability theory and where felony murder never charged in indictment. (Rule 23 Order.)

POST-CONVICTION PETITIONS

Appeal, 5th Dist., No. 88198. People v. Woods.

This case presents question of whether trial ct. properly dismissed defendant's pro se petition for post-conviction relief because it was untimely since it was filed more than 3 years after date defendant pleaded guilty rather that 3 years from date of sentence? App. Ct., in affirming trial ct., concluded that 3 year period started from date of guilty plea.

REPORTER'S PRIVILEGE

People and The Special Grand Jury of St. Clair County, Illinois v. Pawlaczyk. Appeal, 5th Dist., No. 87260.

This case presents question of whether trial ct. properly ordered 2 reporters to divulge to grand jury whether certain persons were sources of information used in particular news article during course of grand jury investigation regarding potential perjury charges? App. Ct., in affirming trial ct's order, concluded that divestiture of reporter's privilege appropriate here where there was no claim that information was required to be kept secret, and record showed that no other means existed for obtaining requested information, and that disclosure was essential to protection of public interest. (Rule 23 Order.)

SAFE NEIGHBORHOODS ACT

People v. Dainty. Appeal, 3rd Dist., No. 86497.

This case presents question of whether Public Act 88-680 (i.e. Safe Neighborhoods Act), which increased minimum sentence for defendants convicted of armed violence using blade of at least 3 inches, is constitutional. App. Ct. found said statute unconstitutional on grounds it violated single subject rule of Ill. Constitution.

SENTENCING

People v. Lemons. Appeal, 4th Dist., No. 87131.

This case present question of whether trial ct. properly imposed extended term sentence under section 5-5-3.2(b)(1) of Unified Code of Corrections, 730 ILCS 5/5-5-3.2(b)(1), for 1997 aggravated battery conviction based upon 1985 burglary conviction? Although date of original sentence on burglary conviction was more than 10 years prior to instant conviction, App. Ct. found imposition of extended term still proper because it occurred within 10 years from date defendant's probation for same burglary conviction was revoked.

People v. Stacey. Appeal, 1st Dist., No. 87104.

This case presents question of whether trial ct. abused its discretion in sentencing defendant to 2 consecutive 25 year prison terms for touching/grabbing 2 females on their breasts on outside of their clothing? App. Ct., in affirming sentence, found no abuse of discretion given defendant's prior convictions, including conviction for aggravated criminal sexual abuse, as well as defendant's lack of remorse. Ct. further noted that record indicated that defendant was predator who terrorized girls by perverse sexual conduct. (Rule 23 Order.)

SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT

Appeal, 2nd Dist., No. 88228. People v. Malchow.

This case presents question of whether section 3(a)(2) of Sex Offender Registration Act, 730 ILCS 150/3(a)(2), which imposes criminal penalties for failure of individuals to register as sex offenders, is constitutional? App. Ct. concluded that Act did not violate ex post facto clause, federal and state prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment, right to privacy, double jeopardy, due process and equal protection or single-subject rule.

SPEEDY TRIAL

Appeal, 5th Dist., No. 85439. (link not available) People v. Gooden.

This case presents question of whether State violated defendant's right to speedy trial when State filed sexual assault charge more than 120 days after defendant had been taken into custody on home invasion charge where sexual assault charge out of same set of facts and where State knew of facts at time home invasion charge filed. Appellate Court found no speedy trial violation since defendant's request for continuance on home invasion charge applied to sexual assault charge as well.