resulting error in Illinois

2006People v. Vincent, No. 1 — 04—1802 (2005) (unpublished order under Rule 23), appeal allowed, 217 Ill. 2d 623 , 844 N.E.2d 971 (2006).

2006People v. Vincent, No. 1 — 04—1802 (2005) (unpublished order under Rule 23), appeal allowed, 217 Ill. 2d 623 , 844 N.E.2d 971 (2006).

1993Dec. 585 , 470 N.E.2d 1005 .) Here, defendant's appellate counsel undoubtedly considered the fact that the trial court's ruling on the admissibility of the sketch would not be reversed on direct appeal unless the trial court was found to have abused its discretion and the resulting error could not be deemed harmless.

1993(People v. Barnard (1984), 104 Ill. 2d 218 .) Here, defendant’s appellate counsel undoubtedly considered the fact that the trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of the sketch would not be reversed on direct appeal unless the trial court was found to have abused its discretion and the resulting error could not be deemed harmless.

2025Thus, the court implicitly found there was possible neglect of the case under People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (1984). 7 See People v. Jolly, 2014 IL 117142, ¶ 29 ; see also In re Johnathan T., 2022 IL 127222, ¶ 24 (noting the Krankel procedure “is triggered when a defendant raises a pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel”). ¶ 27 Immediately before the resulting hearing, the court noted on the record the pending posttrial motions, including one from Nemzin, several pro se motions from defendant, and the “Amended Motion for New Trial,” filed by defendant’s new postt

2025Thus, the court implicitly found there was possible neglect of the case under People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (1984). 7 See People v. Jolly, 2014 IL 117142, ¶ 29 ; see also In re Johnathan T., 2022 IL 127222, ¶ 24 (noting the Krankel procedure “is triggered when a defendant raises a pro se posttrial claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel”). ¶ 27 Immediately before the resulting hearing, the court noted on the record the pending posttrial motions, including one from Nemzin, several pro se motions from defendant, and the “Amended Motion for New Trial,” filed by defendant’s new postt

2024When a trial court finds that the best interests of the child warrants termination of parental rights and enters an order to that effect, the parent-child relationship is permanently and completely severed. [Citations.] If this ruling is a matter of judicial discretion, as the State and the GAL argue, then it is reviewable only for an abuse of that discretion. [Citation.] ‘Abuse of discretion’ is the most deferential standard of review—next to no review at all—and is therefore traditionally reserved for decisions made by a trial judge in overseeing his or her courtroom or in maintaining the pr

1992In Gaffney v. Cummings (1973), 412 U.S. 735, 752 , 93 S.Ct. 2321, 2331 , 37 L.Ed.2d 298, 312 , the Supreme Court stated that "[i]t would be idle * * * to contend, that any political consideration taken into account in fashioning a reapportionment plan is sufficient to invalidate it." Thus, while politics and political considerations unfortunately have had more than a subtle influence on this proposed map, the resulting analysis conducted by this court must set aside the partisan and special interest bickering and stress the mandate of our State Constitution that the legislative and representat

1992Ed. 2d 298, 312 , 93 S. Ct. 2321, 2331 , the Supreme Court stated that “[i]t would be idle *** to contend, that any political consideration taken into account in fashioning a reapportionment plan is sufficient to invalidate it.” Thus, while politics and political considerations unfortunately have had more than a subtle influence on this proposed map, the resulting analysis conducted by this court must set aside the partisan and special interest bickering and stress the mandate of our State Constitution that the legislative and representative “[districts shall be compact, contiguous, and substa

1991In People v. Sanchez (1986), 115 Ill. 2d 238, 269-70 , we upheld a trial judge’s refusal to tender an instruction almost identical to the one here (“In considering the death penalty, you may, if you wish to do so, consider whether or not you wish to extend mercy to the defendant.”).

1990People v. Aliwoli (1976), 42 Ill.

1990App. 3d 930, 939 , 307 N.E.2d 142 .) Only if the resulting error is clear and prejudicial will this court usurp the circuit court’s broad discretion to accept an expert as qualified.

1989(People v. Padilla (1988), 173 Ill.

1989(See Comstock v. Comstock (1977), 55 Ill.

1989App. 3d at 832 , 491 N.E.2d at 138 .) If the defendant cannot show how he was prejudiced, the resulting error will generally be harmless.

1989(In re Marriage of Smith (1981), 86 Ill. 2d 518, 529 , 427 N.E.2d 1239, 1244 .) The resulting presumption should not be lightly overcome by judicial decision where the facts do not warrant it.

1989(In re Marriage of Smith (1981), 86 Ill. 2d 518, 529 , 427 N.E.2d 1239, 1244 .) The resulting presumption should not be lightly overcome by judicial decision where the facts do not warrant it.

1979(Braband v. Beech Aircraft Corp. (1978), 72 Ill. 2d 548 , 382 N.E.2d 252 ; see also Nelson v. Miller, 11 Ill. 2d 378, 384 , 143 N.E.2d 673, 676 .) The resulting test is a flexible one, emphasizing the reasonableness of subjecting a defendant to a foreign jurisdiction.

1979(Braband v. Beech Aircraft Corp. (1978), 72 Ill. 2d 548 , 382 N.E.2d 252 ; see also Nelson v. Miller, 11 Ill. 2d 378, 384 , 143 N.E.2d 673, 676 .) The resulting test is a flexible one, emphasizing the reasonableness of subjecting a defendant to a foreign jurisdiction.