first step analysis in Illinois

2019Under the doctrine, a reviewing court may consider an unpreserved error in one of the following circumstances: “(1) a clear or obvious error occurred and the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of the - 15 - error, or (2) a clear or obvious error occurred and that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.” People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565 , 870 N

2019Under the doctrine, a reviewing court may consider an unpreserved error in one of the following circumstances: “(1) a clear or obvious error occurred and the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of the - 15 - error, or (2) a clear or obvious error occurred and that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.” People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565 , 870 N

2021The defendant has the burden to show plain error occurred (People v. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598, 613 (2010)), and the first step under the doctrine is to determine whether there was a clear or obvious error (People v. Sebby, 2017 IL 119445, ¶ 49 ). ¶ 90 Initially, we note that, although the evidence at trial showed that defendant and Rick were estranged when defendant made the statements to Rick, the evidence still showed that they were legally married to one another.

2020The defendant has the burden to show plain error occurred (Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d at 613 ), and the first step under the doctrine is to determine whether there was a clear or obvious error.

2026Our supreme court has repeatedly held that “[a]n alleged one-act, one-crime violation is reviewable under the second prong of the plain-error doctrine because it affects the integrity of the judicial process.” People v. Smith, 2019 IL 123901, ¶ 14 ; see also People v. Coates, 2018 IL121926, ¶ 10; see also People v. Harvey, 211 Ill. 2d 368, 389 (2004). ¶ 25 Nonetheless, because “there can be no plain error if there was no error at all,” the first step in our analysis is to determine whether any error occurred.

2012People v. Harvey, 211 Ill. 2d 368, 389-90 (2004).

2024Additionally, “[a]s the first step in the analysis, we must determine whether any error occurred at all.” People v. Williams, 2018 IL App (4th) 150759, ¶ 16 (citing People v. Eppinger, 2013 IL 114121, ¶ 19 ).

2021As the first step in the analysis, we must determine “whether there was a clear or obvious error at trial.” People v. Sebby, 2017 IL 119445, ¶ 49 , 89 N.E.3d 675 ; see also People v. Eppinger, 2013 IL 114121, ¶ 19 , 984 N.E.2d 475 .

2026To obtain relief under the doctrine, “a defendant must first show that a clear or obvious error occurred.” Id.; see People v. Jackson, 2022 IL 127256, ¶ 21 (“When a defendant invokes the plain error rule, the first step in the analysis is to determine whether a clear or obvious error occurred.”).

2026People v. Jackson, 2022 IL 127256, ¶ 21 (“When a defendant invokes the plain error rule, the first step in the analysis is to determine whether a clear or obvious error occurred.”).

2020Alleged Violation of Due Process ¶ 28 Plaintiff maintains he sufficiently stated a cause of action for certiorari and mandamus relief based on defendants’ alleged violations of his due process rights. ¶ 29 “When presented with an alleged procedural due process violation in the context of prison disciplinary proceedings, the first step in our analysis involves determining whether a liberty or property interest has been interfered with by the State, for if there is not, no process is due.” Trevino v. Baldwin, 2020 IL App (4th) 180682, ¶ 20 ; see also Hill v. Walker, 241 Ill. 2d 479, 485 , 948 N.

2020Alleged Violation of Due Process ¶ 28 Plaintiff maintains he sufficiently stated a cause of action for certiorari and mandamus relief based on defendants’ alleged violations of his due process rights. ¶ 29 “When presented with an alleged procedural due process violation in the context of prison disciplinary proceedings, the first step in our analysis involves determining whether a liberty or property interest has been interfered with by the State, for if there is not, no process is due.” Trevino v. Baldwin, 2020 IL App (4th) 180682, ¶ 20 ; see also Hill v. Walker, 241 Ill. 2d 479, 485 , 948 N.

2016That is only the first step in the inquiry, as the failure to give proper Rule 605(a) admonitions requires remand “only where there has been prejudice or a denial of real justice as a result of the inadequate admonishment.” People v. Henderson, 217 Ill. 2d 449, 466 (2005).

2016That is only the first step in the inquiry, as the failure to give proper Rule 605(a) admonitions requires remand “only where there has been prejudice or a denial of real justice as a result of the inadequate admonishment.” People v. Henderson, 217 Ill. 2d 449, 466 (2005).

2025An ineffective assistance of counsel claim is governed by the two-pronged test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).

2024“More specifically, a defendant must show that counsel’s performance was objectively unreasonable under prevailing professional norms and that there is a ‘reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’ Id. (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984)). ¶ 71 “Generally, a factor implicit in the offense for which the defendant has been convicted cannot be used as an aggravating factor in sentencing for that offense.” People v. Phelps, 211 Ill. 2d 1, 11 (2004).

2024“If error did occur, we then consider whether either prong of the plain-error doctrine has been satisfied.” People v. Sykes, 2012 IL App (4th) 111110, ¶ 31 (citing People v. Sargent, 239 Ill. 2d 166, 189-90 (2010)). ¶ 56 1.

2023People v. Sargent, 239 Ill. 2d 166, 189 (2010). ¶ 12 Mallory contends that it was error to give IPI Criminal No. 3.13X as modified by the State.

2023Sebby, 2017 IL 119445 , ¶ 49. ¶ 59 In a bench trial, the trial court is permitted to consider its “own life and experience in ruling on the evidence.” People v. Thomas, 377 Ill.

2021Sebby, 2017 IL 119445 , ¶ 49. ¶ 42 In a bench trial, the court is permitted to consider its “own life and experience in ruling on the evidence.” People v. Thomas, 377 Ill.

2022The “ ‘ “mere absence of express language describing a mental state does not per se lead to the conclusion that none is required.” ’ ” People v. Witherspoon, 2019 IL 123092, ¶ 30 (quoting People v. Gean, 143 Ill. 2d 281, 286 (1991), quoting People v. Valley Steel Products Co., 71 Ill. 2d 408, 424 (1978)).

2022The “ ‘ “mere absence of express language describing a mental state does not per se lead to the conclusion that none is required.” ’ ” People v. Witherspoon, 2019 IL 123092, ¶ 30 (quoting People v. Gean, 143 Ill. 2d 281, 286 (1991), quoting People v. Valley Steel Products Co., 71 Ill. 2d 408, 424 (1978)).

2022The “ ‘ “mere absence of express language describing a mental state does not per se lead to the conclusion that none is required.” ’ ” People v. Witherspoon, 2019 IL 123092, ¶ 30 (quoting People v. Gean, 143 Ill. 2d 281, 286 (1991), quoting People v. Valley Steel Products Co., 71 Ill. 2d 408, 424 (1978)).

2022The “ ‘ “mere absence of express language describing a mental state does not per se lead to the conclusion that none is required.” ’ ” People v. Witherspoon, 2019 IL 123092, ¶ 30 (quoting People v. Gean, 143 Ill. 2d 281, 286 (1991), quoting People v. Valley Steel Products Co., 71 Ill. 2d 408, 424 (1978)).

2022The “ ‘ “mere absence of express language describing a mental state does not per se lead to the conclusion that none is required.” ’ ” People v. Witherspoon, 2019 IL 123092, ¶ 30 (quoting People v. Gean, 143 Ill. 2d 281, 286 (1991), quoting People v. Valley Steel Products Co., 71 Ill. 2d 408, 424 (1978)).

2022The “ ‘ “mere absence of express language describing a mental state does not per se lead to the conclusion that none is required.” ’ ” People v. Witherspoon, 2019 IL 123092, ¶ 30 (quoting People v. Gean, 143 Ill. 2d 281, 286 (1991), quoting People v. Valley Steel Products Co., 71 Ill. 2d 408, 424 (1978)).

2024“If error did occur, we then consider whether either prong of the plain-error doctrine has been satisfied.” People v. Sykes, 2012 IL App (4th) 111110, ¶ 31 , 972 N.E.2d 1272 . ¶ 46 Section 5-8-4 of the Unified Code states, in pertinent part: “For sentences imposed under the law in effect on or after February 1, 1978, the aggregate of consecutive sentences for offenses that were committed as part of a single course of conduct during which there was no substantial change in the nature of the criminal objective shall not exceed the sum of the maximum terms authorized under Article 4.5 of Chapter

2024“If error did occur, we then consider whether either prong of the plain-error doctrine has been satisfied.” People v. Sykes, 2012 IL App (4th) 111110, ¶ 31 , 972 N.E.2d 1272 . ¶ 46 Section 5-8-4 of the Unified Code states, in pertinent part: “For sentences imposed under the law in effect on or after February 1, 1978, the aggregate of consecutive sentences for offenses that were committed as part of a single course of conduct during which there was no substantial change in the nature of the criminal objective shall not exceed the sum of the maximum terms authorized under Article 4.5 of Chapter

2026Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d at 545 .

2025People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539, 545 (2010). ¶ 94 To obtain review of a forfeited issue under the plain-error doctrine, “the first step in the analysis is to determine whether a clear or obvious error occurred.” Jackson, 2022 IL 127256, ¶ 21 .

2024Additionally, “[a]s the first step in the analysis, we must determine whether any error occurred at all.” People v. Williams, 2018 IL App (4th) 150759, ¶ 16 (citing People v. Eppinger, 2013 IL 114121, ¶ 19 ).

2019Additionally, “[a]s the first step in the analysis, we must determine whether any error occurred at all.” Williams, 2018 IL App (4th) 150759, ¶ 16 . ¶ 27 In this instance, we find no clear or obvious error.

2025King, 66 Ill.2d at 566 .

2023For the purpose of the one-act, one-crime rule, our supreme court has defined an “act” as “any overt or outward manifestation which will support a different offense.” People v. King, 66 Ill. 2d 551, 566 , 363 N.E.2d 838, 844-45 (1977). “[I]f a defendant commits multiple acts, then multiple convictions may stand, provided that none of the offenses are lesser-included offenses.” Kotero, 2012 IL App (1st) 100951, ¶ 19 .

2023See Cryns, 203 Ill. 2d at 275 . -7- No. 1-22-0853 ¶ 19 Section 155 allows a plaintiff to recover attorney fees, costs, and statutory damages from an insurer that unreasonably delayed or denied payment of an insurance claim.

2020“Where, as here, the trial court states that it has considered the evidence, the trial court has engaged in the second step of its analysis and has necessarily found the plaintiff has met the first step of the analysis by presenting a prima facie case.” Id. ¶ 36 We review the trial court’s entry of a directed finding to determine whether it is against the manifest weight of the evidence.

2018App. 3d at 446 , 336 Ill.Dec. 615 , 920 N.E.2d 1205 , citing Walsh v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners , 96 Ill. 2d 101 , 105, 70 Ill.Dec. 241 , 449 N.E.2d 115 (1983) ) ). " 'The first step in our analysis is to determine whether the agency's findings of fact are contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.' " Id. (quoting Marzano , 396 Ill.

2018App. 3d at 446 , 336 Ill.Dec. 615 , 920 N.E.2d 1205 , citing Walsh v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners , 96 Ill. 2d 101 , 105, 70 Ill.Dec. 241 , 449 N.E.2d 115 (1983) ) ). " 'The first step in our analysis is to determine whether the agency's findings of fact are contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.' " Id. (quoting Marzano , 396 Ill.