defendant must prove defense in Illinois

2026See id. at 351-52 . ¶ 17 Turning to defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we note that as the Illinois Supreme Court explained in People v. Graham, 206 Ill. 2d 465, 476 (2003): “Ineffective assistance of counsel claims are analyzed under the test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). [Citation.] Under Strickland, a defendant must prove that defense counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that this substandard performance created a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the result of the proceeding wo

2025Specifically, “a defendant must prove that defense counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that this substandard performance created a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” People v. Graham, 206 Ill. 2d 465, 476 (2003). “ ‘A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.’ ” People v. Hale, 2013 IL 113140, ¶ 18 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 ). ¶ 30 In Hattery, our supreme court held prejudice will be presumed “[w]here ‘counsel entirely

2021Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); People v. Johnson, 218 Ill. 2d 125, 143-44 (2005).

2016People v. Johnson, 218 Ill. 2d 125, 143-44 (2005).

2004People v. Alvine, 173 Ill. 2d 273, 293 (1996).

2004People v. Alvine, 173 Ill.2d 273, 293 , 219 Ill.Dec. 546 , 671 N.E.2d 713 (1996).

2022People v. Wheeler, 401 Ill.

2022People v. Wheeler, 401 Ill.

2024See, e.g., Herron, 215 Ill. 2d at 186-87 (noting that under the first prong of the plain-error doctrine, the defendant must prove the error was prejudicial, and under the second prong, prejudice to the defendant is presumed). ¶ 23 It is axiomatic that a defendant who acquiesces to an alleged error cannot later argue that he or she was prejudiced by the error.

2022Herron, 215 Ill. 2d at 187 (stating that the defendant must prove the error was prejudicial under the first prong of the plain error rule). 1 ¶ 24 In contrast, under the second prong of the plain error rule, the reviewing courts are not concerned with “prejudicial” error.

2011"To obtain relief under Strickland , a defendant must prove that defense counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that this substandard performance caused prejudice by creating a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the trial result would have been different." Id. ¶ 17 "`An attorney's failure to seek discharge of his client on speedy-trial grounds generally will be deemed ineffective assistance of counsel if there is a reasonable probability that the defendant would have been discharged had a timely motion for discharge been made and no jus

2011"To obtain relief under Strickland , a defendant must prove that defense counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that this substandard performance caused prejudice by creating a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the trial result would have been different." Id. ¶ 17 "`An attorney's failure to seek discharge of his client on speedy-trial grounds generally will be deemed ineffective assistance of counsel if there is a reasonable probability that the defendant would have been discharged had a timely motion for discharge been made and no jus

2025Specifically, “a defendant must prove that defense counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that this substandard performance created a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” People v. Graham, 206 Ill. 2d 465, 476 (2003). “ ‘A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.’ ” People v. Hale, 2013 IL 113140, ¶ 18 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 ). ¶ 30 In Hattery, our supreme court held prejudice will be presumed “[w]here ‘counsel entirely

2025Specifically, “a defendant must prove that defense counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that this substandard performance created a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” People v. Graham, 206 Ill. 2d 465, 476 (2003). “ ‘A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.’ ” People v. Hale, 2013 IL 113140, ¶ 18 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 ). ¶ 49 A. The State’s Appeal—Alibi Witnesses ¶ 50 1.

2018See People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 187 , 830 N.E.2d 467, 479 (2005) (stating the defendant must prove the error was prejudicial under the first prong of the plain-error analysis); see also People v. Shorty, 408 Ill.

2017See People v. Herron , 215 Ill. 2d 167 , 187, 294 Ill.Dec. 55 , 830 N.E.2d 467 , 479 (2005) (stating the defendant must prove the error was prejudicial under the first prong of the plain-error analysis); see also People v. Shorty , 408 Ill.

2026See id. at 351-52 . ¶ 17 Turning to defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we note that as the Illinois Supreme Court explained in People v. Graham, 206 Ill. 2d 465, 476 (2003): “Ineffective assistance of counsel claims are analyzed under the test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). [Citation.] Under Strickland, a defendant must prove that defense counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that this substandard performance created a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the result of the proceeding wo

2025Specifically, “a defendant must prove that defense counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that this substandard performance created a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” People v. Graham, 206 Ill. 2d 465, 476 (2003). “ ‘A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.’ ” People v. Hale, 2013 IL 113140, ¶ 18 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 ). ¶ 30 In Hattery, our supreme court held prejudice will be presumed “[w]here ‘counsel entirely

2018Specifically, “a defendant must prove that defense counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that this substandard performance created a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” People v. Graham, 206 Ill. 2d 465, 476 (2003). ¶ 46 In accordance with Strickland, “a court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that is, the defendant must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged a

2017Specifically, "a defendant must prove that defense counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that this substandard performance created a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." People v. Graham , 206 Ill. 2d 465 , 476, 276 Ill.Dec. 878 , 795 N.E.2d 231 (2003). ¶ 46 In accordance with Strickland , "a court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that is, the defendant must overcome the presumption that, und

2011"To obtain relief under Strickland , a defendant must prove that defense counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that this substandard performance caused prejudice by creating a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the trial result would have been different." Id. ¶ 17 "`An attorney's failure to seek discharge of his client on speedy-trial grounds generally will be deemed ineffective assistance of counsel if there is a reasonable probability that the defendant would have been discharged had a timely motion for discharge been made and no jus

2011"To obtain relief under Strickland , a defendant must prove that defense counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that this substandard performance caused prejudice by creating a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the trial result would have been different." Id. ¶ 17 "`An attorney's failure to seek discharge of his client on speedy-trial grounds generally will be deemed ineffective assistance of counsel if there is a reasonable probability that the defendant would have been discharged had a timely motion for discharge been made and no jus

2011Thus, if moving to discharge would have been successful, Shipp's counsel was ineffective for failing to do so. ¶ 18 Section 103-5(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) provides that a defendant is entitled to a trial within 120 days from the date he was taken into custody unless his own acts occasioned delay. 725 ILCS 5/103-5(a) (West 2006). ¶ 19 "Where new and additional charges arise from the same facts as did the original charges and the State had knowledge of these facts at the commencement of the prosecution, the time within which trial is to begin on the new and additional

2011Thus, if moving to discharge would have been successful, Shipp's counsel was ineffective for failing to do so. ¶ 18 Section 103-5(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) provides that a defendant is entitled to a trial within 120 days from the date he was taken into custody unless his own acts occasioned delay. 725 ILCS 5/103-5(a) (West 2006). ¶ 19 "Where new and additional charges arise from the same facts as did the original charges and the State had knowledge of these facts at the commencement of the prosecution, the time within which trial is to begin on the new and additional

2026See id. at 351-52 . ¶ 17 Turning to defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we note that as the Illinois Supreme Court explained in People v. Graham, 206 Ill. 2d 465, 476 (2003): “Ineffective assistance of counsel claims are analyzed under the test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). [Citation.] Under Strickland, a defendant must prove that defense counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that this substandard performance created a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the result of the proceeding wo

2026See id. at 351-52 . ¶ 17 Turning to defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we note that as the Illinois Supreme Court explained in People v. Graham, 206 Ill. 2d 465, 476 (2003): “Ineffective assistance of counsel claims are analyzed under the test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). [Citation.] Under Strickland, a defendant must prove that defense counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that this substandard performance created a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the result of the proceeding wo

2025However, in People v. Johnson, 128 Ill. 2d 253, 269 (1989), our supreme clarified there is no “per se ineffectiveness whenever the defense attorney concedes his client’s guilt to offenses in which there is overwhelming evidence of that guilt but fails to show on the record consent by [the] defendant.

2024People v. Schmitt, 131 Ill. 2d 128, 137 (1989).

2020To establish ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland, “a defendant must prove that defense counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that this substandard performance caused prejudice.” People v. Ross, 229 Ill. 2d 255, 260 , 891 N.E.2d 865, 869 (2008).

2020To establish ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland, “a defendant must prove that defense counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that this substandard performance caused prejudice.” People v. Ross, 229 Ill. 2d 255, 260 , 891 N.E.2d 865, 869 (2008).

2020To establish counsel’s substandard performance caused prejudice, a defendant must show “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Colon, 225 Ill. 2d 125, 135 , 866 N.E.2d 207, 213 (2007).

2020To establish counsel’s substandard performance caused prejudice, a defendant must show “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Colon, 225 Ill. 2d 125, 135 , 866 N.E.2d 207, 213 (2007).

2017See People v. Brown, 236 Ill. 2d 175, 185 , 923 N.E.2d 748, 754 (2010).

2017See People v. Brown, 236 Ill. 2d 175, 185 , 923 N.E.2d 748, 754 (2010).