continuance constituted second-prong plain error (Illinois) · Go Syfert
← Illinois issues

continuance constituted second-prong plain error in Illinois

11 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 2014–2021 5 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Illinois courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (5)

CaseFollowedCited
People v. Walkergreen
ill · 2009 · cited in 6 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2014–2021
2 sentences

2021See People v. Clark, 2014 IL App (1st) 123494, ¶ 40 (citing In re Samantha V., 234 Ill. 2d 359 , 378-79 (2009) (the failure to apply the one-act, one-crime rule constituted second-prong plain error) and People v. Walker, 232 Ill. 2d 113, 131 (2009) (the failure to exercise discretion in denying a request for a continuance constituted second-prong plain error)).

2016The appellate court observed that this court has in fact applied second-prong plain error in other contexts, holding, in In re Samantha V., 234 Ill. 2d 359 , 378-79 (2009), that the failure to apply the one-act, one-crime rule constituted second-prong plain error, and in People v. Walker, 232 Ill. 2d 113, 131 (2009), that the failure to exercise discretion in denying a request for a continuance constituted second-prong plain error, given the egregious facts of that case. 2014 IL App (1st) 123494, ¶ 40 . ¶ 26 The appellate court held that second-prong plain error applies to these facts, essenti

66
People v. Clarkgreen
ill · 2016 · cited in 6 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2019–2021
2 sentences

2021See People v. Clark, 2016 IL 118845 , ¶ 25 (citing cases). - 44 - 2021 IL App (2d) 170149-B ¶ 160 Having concluded that error occurred here, we further hold that there was second-prong plain error.

2021See People v. Clark, 2016 IL 118845 , ¶ 25 (citing cases). ¶ 160 Having concluded that error occurred here, we further hold that there was second-prong plain error.

56
In Re Samanthagreen
ill · 2009 · cited in 6 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2014–2021
2 sentences

2021See People v. Clark, 2014 IL App (1st) 123494, ¶ 40 (citing In re Samantha V., 234 Ill. 2d 359 , 378-79 (2009) (the failure to apply the one-act, one-crime rule constituted second-prong plain error) and People v. Walker, 232 Ill. 2d 113, 131 (2009) (the failure to exercise discretion in denying a request for a continuance constituted second-prong plain error)).

2016The appellate court observed that this court has in fact applied second-prong plain error in other contexts, holding, in In re Samantha V., 234 Ill. 2d 359 , 378-79 (2009), that the failure to apply the one-act, one-crime rule constituted second-prong plain error, and in People v. Walker, 232 Ill. 2d 113, 131 (2009), that the failure to exercise discretion in denying a request for a continuance constituted second-prong plain error, given the egregious facts of that case. 2014 IL App (1st) 123494, ¶ 40 . ¶ 26 The appellate court held that second-prong plain error applies to these facts, essenti

16
People v. Clarkgreen
illappct · 2014 · cited in 4 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2016–2021
2 sentences

2021See People v. Clark, 2014 IL App (1st) 123494, ¶ 40 (citing In re Samantha V., 234 Ill. 2d 359 , 378-79 (2009) (the failure to apply the one-act, one-crime rule constituted second-prong plain error) and People v. Walker, 232 Ill. 2d 113, 131 (2009) (the failure to exercise discretion in denying a request for a continuance constituted second-prong plain error)).

2016The appellate court observed that this court has in fact applied second-prong plain error in other contexts, holding, in In re Samantha V., 234 Ill. 2d 359 , 378-79 (2009), that the failure to apply the one-act, one-crime rule constituted second-prong plain error, and in People v. Walker, 232 Ill. 2d 113, 131 (2009), that the failure to exercise discretion in denying a request for a continuance constituted second-prong plain error, given the egregious facts of that case. 2014 IL App (1st) 123494, ¶ 40 . ¶ 26 The appellate court held that second-prong plain error applies to these facts, essenti

14
Neder v. United Statesgreen
scotus · 1999 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
1 sentence

2021As such, even though the omission of a jury instruction on an element of an offense is not structural error (see Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 10 (1999)), it could still be second-prong plain error (Clark, 2016 IL 118845 , ¶ 46). ¶ 23 Accordingly, we must determine whether the error in this case was so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (1)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Kolton green
ill · 2006
2 sentences

2016The appellate court observed that this court has in fact applied second-prong plain error in other contexts, holding, in In re Samantha V., 234 Ill. 2d 359 , 378-79 (2009), that the failure to apply the one-act, one-crime rule constituted second-prong plain error, and in People v. Walker, 232 Ill. 2d 113, 131 (2009), that the failure to exercise discretion in denying a request for a continuance constituted second-prong plain error, given the egregious facts of that case. 2014 IL App (1st) 123494, ¶ 40 . ¶ 26 The appellate court held that second-prong plain error applies to these facts, essenti

2016The appellate court observed that this court has in fact applied second-prong plain error in other contexts, holding, in In re Samantha V., 234 Ill. 2d 359 , 378-79 (2009), that the failure to apply the one-act, one-crime rule constituted second-prong plain error, and in People v. Walker, 232 Ill. 2d 113, 131 (2009), that the failure to exercise discretion in denying a request for a continuance constituted second-prong plain error, given the egregious facts of that case. 2014 IL App (1st) 123494, ¶ 40 . ¶ 26 The appellate court held that second-prong plain error applies to these facts, essenti

32016–2016

Statutes the citing opinions construe

IL § 720 ILCS 5/18-1 (5) IL § 720 ILCS 5/18-2 (5) IL § 720 ILCS 5/18-3 (5) IL § 720 ILCS 5/18-4 (5) IL § 625 ILCS 5/11-204 (4) IL § 720 ILCS 5/8-4 (4) IL § 720 ILCS 5/10-3.1 (3) IL § 720 ILCS 5/12-3.05 (3) IL § 720 ILCS 5/12-4 (3) IL § 720 ILCS 5/19-1 (3) IL § 720 ILCS 5/2-9 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check