defendant an evidentiary hearing in Illinois

2000Govin , 213 Ill.

2000Govin, 213 Ill.

2016The defendant, upon timely request, shall be allowed to file an amended posttrial motion, and the hearing on the posttrial motions shall proceed in a manner consistent with this opinion. ¶ 43 Orders vacated; remanded with directions. 21 2016 IL App (5th) 130589 NO. 5-13-0589 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Jasper County. ) v. ) No. 13-CF-8 ) MICHAEL A. SHAMHART, ) Honorable ) S. Gene Schwarm, Defendant-A

1989This evidence, along with the defendant’s sworn denials and his allegations of Chambers’ deliberate falsehood and reckless disregard for the truth, constituted an adequate and substantial preliminary showing to mandate granting the defendant an evidentiary hearing to challenge the allegations of the complaint for the search warrant.” (People v. Zymantas (1986), 147 Ill.

1986The court pointed out further that “it would appear that a majority of the jurisdictions which have considered the question have concluded that matters alleged under oath, upon which a search warrant was issued, may not be disputed by the one against whom or against whose property the warrant has been directed,” but that other courts “have favored a contrary view.” ( 45 Ill. 2d 140, 143 , 258 N.E.2d 341 .) The court concluded that “[t]he majority of the members of this court prefer the view that the matters declared which caused the search warrant to be issued may not be contested by one subje

1986The court pointed out further that “it would appear that a majority of the jurisdictions which have considered the question have concluded that matters alleged under oath, upon which a search warrant was issued, may not be disputed by the one against whom or against whose property the warrant has been directed,” but that other courts “have favored a contrary view.” ( 45 Ill. 2d 140, 143 , 258 N.E.2d 341 .) The court concluded that “[t]he majority of the members of this court prefer the view that the matters declared which caused the search warrant to be issued may not be contested by one subje

1986In People v. Coleman (1980), 91 Ill.

1974In People v. Flanigan, 49 Ill.2d 321 , 274 N.E.2d 75 , the court stated: “The alleged incompetencé of retained counsel ‘presents no constitutional question for consideration in a post-conviction proceeding unless representation is of such low calibre as to amount to no representation at all or reduce the court proceedings to a farce or a sham * * ( 49 Ill.2d 323 .) In Flanigan the defendant filed a post-conviction petition alleging that his retained counsel failed to adequately investigate and prepare for the case, and because of this failure, the defendant was induced to plead guilty.

1974In People v. Flanigan, 49 Ill.2d 321 , 274 N.E.2d 75 , the court stated: “The alleged incompetencé of retained counsel ‘presents no constitutional question for consideration in a post-conviction proceeding unless representation is of such low calibre as to amount to no representation at all or reduce the court proceedings to a farce or a sham * * ( 49 Ill.2d 323 .) In Flanigan the defendant filed a post-conviction petition alleging that his retained counsel failed to adequately investigate and prepare for the case, and because of this failure, the defendant was induced to plead guilty.