issue at the sentencing hearing in Illinois

2022Flowers asserted that he tried to raise this issue at the sentencing hearing, but the trial judge did not appoint another attorney to argue the issue, which violated People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (1984).

2022Plain Error ¶ 24 A defendant’s forfeited claim may be reviewed under the plain-error doctrine in either of two instances: “(1) when ‘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 error,’ or (2) when ‘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. Walker, 2021 IL App (

2022Flowers also cited People v. Fields, 2013 IL App (2d) 120945 , noting that in that case, the trial court violated the defendant’s right to be represented by counsel by converting a Krankel hearing into an evidentiary hearing.

2022Plain Error ¶ 24 A defendant’s forfeited claim may be reviewed under the plain-error doctrine in either of two instances: “(1) when ‘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 error,’ or (2) when ‘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. Walker, 2021 IL App (

2022Plain Error ¶ 24 A defendant’s forfeited claim may be reviewed under the plain-error doctrine in either of two instances: “(1) when ‘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 error,’ or (2) when ‘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. Walker, 2021 IL App (

1993(Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d at 186 , 522 N.E.2d at 1130 .) Courts apply the plain error doctrine to redress “serious injustices which have been done to the defendant.” (People v. Carlson (1980), 79 Ill. 2d 564, 576 , 404 N.E.2d 233, 238 .) “Rule 615(a) does not operate in the nature of a general saving clause preserving for review all errors affecting substantial rights whether or not they have been brought to the attention of the trial court.

1993(Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d at 186 , 522 N.E.2d at 1130 .) Courts apply the plain error doctrine to redress “serious injustices which have been done to the defendant.” (People v. Carlson (1980), 79 Ill. 2d 564, 576 , 404 N.E.2d 233, 238 .) “Rule 615(a) does not operate in the nature of a general saving clause preserving for review all errors affecting substantial rights whether or not they have been brought to the attention of the trial court.

1992App. 3d 840, 859 , 493 N.E.2d 600 .) Because defendant in the case sub judiee failed to raise the issue at the sentencing hearing that the State failed to meet its burden of proof regarding when the second felony was committed, this issue is waived.

1988(See also People v. Shiflet (1984), 125 Ill.

1987(People v. Lyles (1985), 106 Ill. 2d 373, 417 .) Moreover, Dr. Tuteur’s report said: “[The defendant] was fully informed that the examination about to begin is based on a State Motion whereby the Defendant is ordered to submit to this examination.

1987In Estelle v. Smith (1981), 451 U.S. 454, 468 , 68 L.Ed.2d 359, 372 , 101 S.Ct. 1866, 1876 , the Supreme Court held: "A criminal defendant, who neither initiates *458 a psychiatric evaluation nor attempts to introduce any psychiatric evidence, may not be compelled to respond to a psychiatrist if his statements can be used against him at a capital sentencing hearing." Here, the defendant made his psychological condition an issue at the sentencing hearing, and therefore he may be considered to have waived any objection to the introduction of relevant information on that question. ( People v. Lyl

1987Ed. 2d 359 , .372, 101 S. Ct. 1866, 1876 , the Supreme Court held: “A criminal defendant, who neither initiates a psychiatric evaluation nor attempts to introduce any psychiatric evidence, may not be compelled to respond to a psychiatrist if his statements can be used against him at a capital sentencing hearing.” Here, the defendant made his psychological condition an issue at the sentencing hearing, and therefore he may be considered to have waived any objection to the introduction of relevant information on that question.

1987In Estelle v. Smith (1981), 451 U.S. 454, 468 , 68 L.Ed.2d 359, 372 , 101 S.Ct. 1866, 1876 , the Supreme Court held: "A criminal defendant, who neither initiates *458 a psychiatric evaluation nor attempts to introduce any psychiatric evidence, may not be compelled to respond to a psychiatrist if his statements can be used against him at a capital sentencing hearing." Here, the defendant made his psychological condition an issue at the sentencing hearing, and therefore he may be considered to have waived any objection to the introduction of relevant information on that question. ( People v. Lyl

1986(People v. Friesland (1985), 109 Ill. 2d 369 , 488 N.E.2d 261 ; People v. Pickett (1973), 54 Ill. 2d 280 , 296 N.E.2d 856 .) Defendant has waived review of this issue.

1986(People v. Friesland (1985), 109 Ill. 2d 369 , 488 N.E.2d 261 ; People v. Pickett (1973), 54 Ill. 2d 280 , 296 N.E.2d 856 .) Defendant has waived review of this issue.

1986(People v. Friesland (1985), 109 Ill. 2d 369 , 488 N.E.2d 261 ; People v. Pickett (1973), 54 Ill. 2d 280 , 296 N.E.2d 856 .) Defendant has waived review of this issue.

1986(People v. Friesland (1985), 109 Ill. 2d 369 , 488 N.E.2d 261 ; People v. Pickett (1973), 54 Ill. 2d 280 , 296 N.E.2d 856 .) Defendant has waived review of this issue.