Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2022 1 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Ramirezgreen2 sentences2022See Ramirez, 214 Ill. 2d at 184 (strict compliance with the certified mailing requirement of section 115-4.1 of the Code cannot be harmless error). ¶ 23 Because our decision on the first issue is dispositive, it is not necessary to address the defendant’s other arguments on appeal. ¶ 24 CONCLUSION ¶ 25 The judgment of the circuit court of Mercer County is reversed and remanded. ¶ 26 Reversed and remanded. 10 2022Thus, we conclude that the trial court erred in completing the defendant’s trial in absentia without complying with the notice provisions of section 115-4.1(a) of the Code. 8 ¶ 20 Alternatively, even if the certified mailing requirement was not mandatory, to establish a prima facie case that a defendant was willfully avoiding trial, the State had to “show that the defendant (1) was advised of the trial date; (2) was advised that failure to appear could result in trial in absentia; and (3) did not appear for trial when the case was called.” Ramirez, 214 Ill. 2d at 184 . | 3 | 5 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Clark
green
2 sentences2005Clark, 96 Ill. 2005Clark , 96 Ill. | 2 | 2005–2005 |
People v. Flores
green
2 sentences2005In opposition to this result, the State argues that construing the certified mailing requirement as mandatory would violate important separation of powers principles. 2 In support, the State relies upon this court’s decision in People v. Flores, 104 Ill. 2d 40 (1984). 2005In opposition to this result, the State argues that construing the certified mailing requirement as mandatory would violate important separation of powers principles. (footnote: 2) In support, the State relies upon this court’s decision in People v. Flores , 104 Ill. 2d 40 (1984). | 2 | 2005–2005 |
People v. Coppage
green
1 sentence2022Such notification shall be required when the defendant was not personally present in open court at the time when the case was set for trial.” Id. § 5/115-4.1(a). 7 ¶ 18 Our supreme court has held that where the defendant was not personally present in open court when a case was set for trial, strict compliance with the certified mailing requirement of section 115-4.1(a) of the Code is required. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Prado
green
1 sentence2016Prado, 2012 IL App (2d) 110767, ¶ 9 . ¶ 10 Here, as defendant expressly asked the court to waive the certified-mailing requirement, we deem the record to affirmatively show that the State was not served by certified or registered mail. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.