burden to show exception in Illinois

2024Smith, 195 Ill. 2d at 188 . ¶ 48 B.

2024Smith, 195 Ill. 2d at 188 . ¶ 81 2.

2017Because we agree with defendant’s second argument, we need not address the first. ¶ 26 To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, defendant has the burden to show his claim satisfies the two-pronged Strickland test (see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)), as recently explained by the Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Cherry, 2016 IL 118728, ¶ 24 , 63 N.E.3d 871 : “Under Strickland, to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show both that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defenda

2017Because we agree with defendant’s second argument, we need not address the first. ¶ 26 To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, defendant has the burden to show his claim satisfies the two-pronged Strickland test (see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)), as recently explained by the Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Cherry, 2016 IL 118728, ¶ 24 , 63 N.E.3d 871 : “Under Strickland, to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show both that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defenda

2017Because we agree with defendant’s second argument, we need not address the first. ¶ 26 To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, defendant has the burden to show his claim satisfies the two-pronged Strickland test (see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)), as recently explained by the Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Cherry, 2016 IL 118728, ¶ 24 , 63 N.E.3d 871 : “Under Strickland, to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show both that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defenda

2017Because we agree with defendant’s second argument, we need not address the first. ¶ 26 To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, defendant has the burden to show his claim satisfies the two-pronged Strickland test (see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)), as recently explained by the Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Cherry, 2016 IL 118728, ¶ 24 , 63 N.E.3d 871 : “Under Strickland, to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show both that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defenda

2014See In re Alfred H.H., 233 Ill. 2d 345, 350 (2009). 4 No. 1-13-1950 ¶ 12 Generally, a party resisting a finding of mootness has the burden to show an exception to the mootness doctrine on at least one of three grounds: that the case falls into the category of one that is “capable of repetition but evading review”; that the case involves an issue of great public importance; or that there are collateral consequences of the order appealed from such that it "could return to plague the [defendant] in some future proceedings or could affect other aspects of [the defendant’s] life." (Internal quotati

2014See In re Alfred H.H., 233 Ill. 2d 345, 350 (2009). ¶ 12 Generally, a party resisting a finding of mootness has the burden to show an exception to the mootness doctrine on at least one of three grounds: that the case falls into the category of one that is “capable of repetition but evading review”; that the case involves an issue of great public importance; or that there are collateral consequences of the order appealed from such that it “could return to plague the [defendant] in some future proceedings or could affect other aspects of the [defendant’s] life.” (Internal quotation marks omitted

2022“Generally, a party resisting - 18 - Nos. 1-22-0275 and 1-22-0395 (consolidated) dismissal for mootness has the burden to show an exception to the mootness doctrine on at least one of three grounds: that the case involves an issue of great public importance, that the case falls into the category of one that is capable of repetition but evading review, or that there are collateral consequences of the order appealed from such that it could return to plague the complainant in some future proceedings or could affect other aspects of the complainant's life.” Koshinski v. Trame, 2017 IL App (5th) 15

2022“The public interest exception to the mootness doctrine applies only when ‘(1) the question presented is of a public nature; (2) an authoritative determination of the question is desirable for the future guidance of public officers; and (3) the question is likely to recur.’ ” Id. (quoting In re Shelby R., 2013 IL 114994, ¶ 16 .

2022“Generally, a party resisting - 18 - Nos. 1-22-0275 and 1-22-0395 (consolidated) dismissal for mootness has the burden to show an exception to the mootness doctrine on at least one of three grounds: that the case involves an issue of great public importance, that the case falls into the category of one that is capable of repetition but evading review, or that there are collateral consequences of the order appealed from such that it could return to plague the complainant in some future proceedings or could affect other aspects of the complainant's life.” Koshinski v. Trame, 2017 IL App (5th) 15

2022“The public interest exception to the mootness doctrine applies only when ‘(1) the question presented is of a public nature; (2) an authoritative determination of the question is desirable for the future guidance of public officers; and (3) the question is likely to recur.’ ” Id. (quoting In re Shelby R., 2013 IL 114994, ¶ 16 .

1978While this court has refused to hold that statements obtained in the absence of counsel, even though counsel has been retained or appointed, are per se inadmissible, we observe that the State has a higher burden to show waiver of the presence of counsel, once counsel has been appointed, than in cases wherein interrogation takes place, prior to the appointment of counsel People v. Sandoval (1976), 41 Ill.