first step of plain error in Illinois

2024To satisfy this prong, the defendant must show “that the quantum of evidence presented by the State against the defendant rendered the evidence ‘closely balanced.’ ” People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 566 (2007). -4- No. 1-23-0118 ¶ 12 “The first step of plain error review is determining whether any error occurred.” Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d at 613 .

2023Id. ¶ 88 The first step of plain error review is determining whether any error occurred.

2026People v. Walker, 232 Ill. 2d 113, 124-25 (2009). 13 ¶ 38 Here, even if this court were to assume that the trial court committed an error when it questioned the veniremembers about the presumption of innocence, the evidence presented at the defendant’s trial cannot reasonably be characterized as “closely balanced” under the first prong of plain-error analysis.

2023People v. Walker, 232 Ill. 2d 113, 124-25 (2009).

2025“That is true because if there is no error, then there can be no plain error.” People v. Maury, 2025 IL App (4th) 220887, ¶ 93 . “ ‘However, similar to the analytical framework we use to review a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel [citation], the first step of plain-error analysis is merely a matter of convention,’ and we may begin the analysis in any order.” Id. (quoting People v. Bowens, 407 Ill.

2025“That is true because if there is no error, then there can be no plain error.” People v. Maury, 2025 IL App (4th) 220887, ¶ 93 . “ ‘However, similar to the analytical framework we use to review a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel [citation], the first step of plain-error analysis is merely a matter of convention,’ and we may - 31 - begin the analysis in any order.” Id. (quoting People v. Bowens, 407 Ill.

2025See Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d at 565 (the first step of plain error analysis is to determine whether error occurred). ¶ 43 Furthermore, even if the trial court had clearly and obviously erred in admitting the October evidence, the defendant’s plain error claim would still fail, as the evidence was not so closely balanced that the error alone would have threatened to tip the scales of justice against him.

2024To satisfy this prong, the defendant must show “that the quantum of evidence presented by the State against the defendant rendered the evidence ‘closely balanced.’ ” People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 566 (2007). -4- No. 1-23-0118 ¶ 12 “The first step of plain error review is determining whether any error occurred.” Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d at 613 .

2023People v. Sargent, 239 Ill. 2d 166, 189 (2010).

2011App. 3d 903, 908 , 927 N.E.2d 819, 824 (2010) (“Where the defendant fails to prove prejudice, the reviewing court need not determine whether counsel’s performance constituted less than reasonable assistance.”)), the first step of plain-error analysis is merely a “matter of convention.” People v. Sargent, 239 Ill. 2d 166, 189 (2010).

2015Id. ¶ 33 The first step of plain-error analysis is to consider whether an error occurred.

2015Id. ¶ 32 The first step of plain-error analysis is to consider whether an error occurred.

2022Id. ¶ 17 In Apprendi, the Supreme Court held that “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490 .

2020Id. ¶ 50 AHC is a Class X felony punishable by 6 to 30 years’ imprisonment. 720 ILCS 5/24-1.7(b) (West 2016); 730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-25(a) (West 2016). ¶ 51 It is improper double enhancement when either (1) a single factor is used both as an element of an offense and as a basis for imposing a longer sentence than may otherwise have been imposed, or (2) the same factor is used twice to elevate the severity of the offense itself.

2026People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539, 545 (2010). ¶ 33 The first step of plain error review is to determine whether a clear or obvious reversible error occurred.

2020People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539, 545 (2010). ¶ 40 The first step of plain error review is to determine whether a clear or obvious error occurred.

2021In re Samantha V., 234 Ill. 2d 359 , 368 (2009). ¶ 10 Under the one-act, one-crime rule, “a defendant may not be convicted of multiple offenses that are based upon precisely the same single physical act.” People v. Johnson, 237 Ill. 2d 81, 97 (2010).

2020In re Samantha V., 234 Ill. 2d. 359, 368 (2009). ¶ 10 Under the one-act, one-crime rule, “a defendant may not be convicted of multiple offenses that are based upon precisely the same single physical act.” People v. Johnson, 237 Ill. 2d 81, 97 (2010).

2018See Jones, 2016 IL 119391, ¶ 10 . “ ‘[T]he term “plain” as used in the plain-error rule is synonymous with “clear” or “obvious”; error is not plain if the law was “unclear at the time of the trial but becomes clear on appeal because the applicable law has been clarified.” ’ ” People v. Fort, 2017 IL 118966, ¶ 39 (quoting In re M.W., 232 Ill. 2d 408, 431 (2009), quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 (1993)). ¶ 47 The defendant has the burden of persuasion on both the threshold question of whether there was a clear or obvious error and the question of whether he is entitled to relief

2017See Jones , 2016 IL 119391 , ¶ 10, 409 Ill.Dec. 44 , 67 N.E.3d 256 . " '[T]he term "plain" as used in the plain-error rule is synonymous with "clear" or "obvious"; error is not plain if the law was "unclear at the time of the trial but becomes clear on appeal because the applicable law has been clarified." ' " People v. Fort , 2017 IL 118966 , ¶ 39, 417 Ill.Dec. 566 , 88 N.E.3d 718 (quoting In re M.W. , 232 Ill. 2d 408 , 431, 328 Ill.Dec. 868 , 905 N.E.2d 757 (2009), quoting United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725 , 734, 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) ). ¶ 47 The defendant has the burde

2018See Jones, 2016 IL 119391, ¶ 10 . “ ‘[T]he term “plain” as used in the plain-error rule is synonymous with “clear” or “obvious”; error is not plain if the law was “unclear at the time of the trial but becomes clear on appeal because the applicable law has been clarified.” ’ ” People v. Fort, 2017 IL 118966, ¶ 39 (quoting In re M.W., 232 Ill. 2d 408, 431 (2009), quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 (1993)). ¶ 47 The defendant has the burden of persuasion on both the threshold question of whether there was a clear or obvious error and the question of whether he is entitled to relief

2017See Jones , 2016 IL 119391 , ¶ 10, 409 Ill.Dec. 44 , 67 N.E.3d 256 . " '[T]he term "plain" as used in the plain-error rule is synonymous with "clear" or "obvious"; error is not plain if the law was "unclear at the time of the trial but becomes clear on appeal because the applicable law has been clarified." ' " People v. Fort , 2017 IL 118966 , ¶ 39, 417 Ill.Dec. 566 , 88 N.E.3d 718 (quoting In re M.W. , 232 Ill. 2d 408 , 431, 328 Ill.Dec. 868 , 905 N.E.2d 757 (2009), quoting United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725 , 734, 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) ). ¶ 47 The defendant has the burde

2018See Jones, 2016 IL 119391, ¶ 10 . “ ‘[T]he term “plain” as used in the plain-error rule is synonymous with “clear” or “obvious”; error is not plain if the law was “unclear at the time of the trial but becomes clear on appeal because the applicable law has been clarified.” ’ ” People v. Fort, 2017 IL 118966, ¶ 39 (quoting In re M.W., 232 Ill. 2d 408, 431 (2009), quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 (1993)). ¶ 47 The defendant has the burden of persuasion on both the threshold question of whether there was a clear or obvious error and the question of whether he is entitled to relief

2017See Jones , 2016 IL 119391 , ¶ 10, 409 Ill.Dec. 44 , 67 N.E.3d 256 . " '[T]he term "plain" as used in the plain-error rule is synonymous with "clear" or "obvious"; error is not plain if the law was "unclear at the time of the trial but becomes clear on appeal because the applicable law has been clarified." ' " People v. Fort , 2017 IL 118966 , ¶ 39, 417 Ill.Dec. 566 , 88 N.E.3d 718 (quoting In re M.W. , 232 Ill. 2d 408 , 431, 328 Ill.Dec. 868 , 905 N.E.2d 757 (2009), quoting United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725 , 734, 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) ). ¶ 47 The defendant has the burde

2025See Lewis, 234 Ill. 2d at 43 .

2022Id. ¶ 22 (citing People v. Sims, 192 Ill. 2d 592, 621 (2000)). ¶ 22 Defendant first contends that the trial court erred in admitting the portion of his postarrest statement that referred to “opps,” in allowing the officers to define “opps” as opposing gang members, and in allowing Callahan to testify that the “opps” at 21st and St.

2022The simple fact that those goals were still outstanding at the time Cruz took over the case would have made clear to Cruz that respondent had not previously completed them. ¶ 43 Even assuming, arguendo, that the single, four-word answer from Cruz amounts to a “clear, obvious, and plain error,” (see People v. Mitok, 2018 IL App (3d) 160743, ¶ 8 (describing the first step of plain error analysis)), that error would not present grounds for relief under either prong of plain error.