transcript of the sentencing hearing in Illinois

2022Specifically, it argues that under Shirley, 181 Ill. 2d 359 , there is no need to remand the matter if defendant has been afforded a full and fair opportunity to present his or her postplea motion.

2021On July 2, 2019, the court denied both motions. ¶5 Defendant appeals, arguing (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea where (a) the record shows his plea was not entered knowingly and intelligently because defense counsel misunderstood the nature and consequences of his plea and (b) his plea was not voluntary as the State’s actions improperly coerced him into the plea; (2) defense counsel failed to strictly comply with the requirements of Rule 604(d), where counsel failed to (a) review the transcript of the sentencing hearing, (b) amend the pleadings to adeq

2021On July 2, 2019, the court denied both motions. ¶5 Defendant appeals, arguing (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea where (a) the record shows his plea was not entered knowingly and intelligently because defense counsel misunderstood the nature and consequences of his plea and (b) his plea was not voluntary as the State’s actions improperly coerced him into the plea; (2) defense counsel failed to strictly comply with the requirements of Rule 604(d), where counsel failed to (a) review the transcript of the sentencing hearing, (b) amend the pleadings to adeq

2021We accept the State’s concession. ¶ 45 “Rule 604(d) governs the procedure to be followed when a defendant wishes to appeal from a judgment entered upon a guilty plea.” In re H.L., 2015 IL 118529, ¶ 7 , 48 N.E.3d 1071 .

2021We accept the State’s concession. ¶ 45 “Rule 604(d) governs the procedure to be followed when a defendant wishes to appeal from a judgment entered upon a guilty plea.” In re H.L., 2015 IL 118529, ¶ 7 , 48 N.E.3d 1071 .

2021In fact, he explicitly acknowledged that although he believed grounds existed for excluding the evidence, “the court system disagree[d] with [him].” See People v. Glass, 144 Ill.

2020“So long as the trial court does not consider - 33 - incompetent evidence or improper aggravating factors, or ignore pertinent mitigating factors, it has wide latitude in sentencing a defendant to any term within the applicable statutory range.” Harmon, 2015 IL App (1st) 122345 , ¶ 122. ¶ 191 Defendant argues that the trial court specifically considered these two convictions at sentencing, and the State argues that the transcript of the sentencing hearing shows otherwise. ¶ 192 At the sentencing hearing, Detective Minter-Edwards testified that, on April 1, 2009, she and her partner, Detective

2017Id. -3- ¶ 11 Defendant contends that, in light of the supreme court’s amendment of the rule, Mineau does not govern this case.

2003Although I find merit in the majority's position, its opinion appears to sidestep our supreme court's decision in Fitzgibbon , 184 Ill. 2d at 326-27 , 704 N.E.2d at 369 .

2003Although I find merit in the majority's position, its opinion appears to sidestep our supreme court's decision in Fitzgibbon , 184 Ill. 2d at 326-27 , 704 N.E.2d at 369 .

1997The State responds that under People v. Evans, 174 Ill. 2d 320 , 673 N.E.2d 244 (1996), defendant was required to file a motion to withdraw the guilty pleas because the defendant received some concession from the State in return for his guilty pleas.

1997The State responds that under People v. Evans, 174 Ill. 2d 320 , 673 N.E.2d 244 (1996), defendant was required to file a motion to withdraw the guilty pleas because the defendant received some concession from the State in return for his guilty pleas.

1988(Saldivar, 113 Ill. 2d at 271 , 497 N.E.2d at 1144 .) The transcript of the sentencing hearing clearly indicates that the sentencing court properly considered the manner in which the victim’s death was brought about, and not merely the fact that the defendant’s conduct caused serious harm.

1988(Saldivar, 113 Ill. 2d at 271 , 497 N.E.2d at 1144 .) The transcript of the sentencing hearing clearly indicates that the sentencing court properly considered the manner in which the victim’s death was brought about, and not merely the fact that the defendant’s conduct caused serious harm.

1983No sentence for unlawful restraint appears in the transcript of the sentencing hearing. 2 Since the filing of a motion for substitution of judges temporarily suspends the 120-day period (People v. McClure (1979), 75 Ill.

1983App. 3d 566, 570-71 , 394 N.E.2d 833 ), defendant has not added to this 237-day period the 22 days between July 21, 1980, the date on which the substitution motion was filed, and August 12, 1980, when the motion was denied. 3 Because of an illness, Rick Halprin was not able to represent defendant at trial. 4 Although no appeal of the contempt citation is before us, we express our strong disapproval of tactics employed by any trial counsel that tend to impede or disrupt orderly court proceedings. 5 Judge Cieslik removed Halprin before he determined what sanction he would impose on the contempt

1974See People v. Gonzales (1973), 15 Ill.App.3d 265, 267-8 ; People v. Luechtefeld (1973), 11 Ill.App.3d 407, 408 ; People v. Rooney (1972), 6 Ill.App.3d 527, 528 ; see also People v. Slaughter (1968), 39 Ill.2d.278.

1974The purpose underlying Supreme Court Rule 651(c) is to insure that all indigente are provided proper representation upon presenting claims of constitutional deprivations under the Post-Conviction Act (People v. Brown (1972), 52 Ill.2d 227, 230 ).

1974See People v. Gonzales (1973), 15 Ill.App.3d 265, 267-8 ; People v. Luechtefeld (1973), 11 Ill.App.3d 407, 408 ; People v. Rooney (1972), 6 Ill.App.3d 527, 528 ; see also People v. Slaughter (1968), 39 Ill.2d.278.