concepts waiver in Illinois

2022See, e.g., Griffin v. Willoughby, 369 Ill.

2020The Applicable Law ¶ 47 In People v. Hibbler, 2019 IL App (4th) 160897, ¶ 51 , 129 N.E.3d 755 , this court explained the concepts of waiver and forfeiture, as follows: “ ‘Waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right, whereas forfeiture is the failure to make a timely assertion of a known right.’ People v. Bowens, 407 Ill.

2020App. 3d 1094, 1098 , 943 N.E.2d 1249, 1256 (2011). ‘In the course of representing their clients, trial attorneys may (1) make a tactical decision not to object to otherwise objectionable matters, which thereby waives appeal of such matters, or (2) fail to recognize the objectionable nature of the - 11 - matter at issue, which results in procedural forfeiture.’ Id.

1995This court has held that "where a defendant’s capacity is the issue in question, it is anomalous to even consider the concepts of waiver” because a defendant whose mental state may render him unfit to stand trial "can scarcely be expected to raise the question of fitness in the first instance.” (Brandon, 162 Ill. 2d at 457 .) In Brandon, we also noted application of the plain error doctrine.

1995This court has held that "where a defendant's capacity is the issue in question, it is anomalous to even consider the concepts of waiver" because a defendant whose mental state may render him unfit to stand trial "can scarcely be expected to raise the question of fitness in the first instance." ( Brandon 162 Ill.2d at 457 , 205 Ill.Dec. 421 , 643 N.E.2d 712 .) In Brandon, we also noted application of the plain error doctrine.

1995The issue of a defendant’s fitness for trial may be raised before, during, or after trial. (725 ILCS 5/104—11 (West 1992); see People v. Johnson (1984), 121 Ill.

1995The issue of a defendant's fitness for trial may be raised before, during, or after trial. (725 ILCS 5/104-11 (West 1992); see People v. Johnson (1984), 121 Ill.App.3d 859 , 77 Ill.Dec. 280 , 460 N.E.2d 336 (reversing for fitness hearing on issue of defendant's fitness to stand trial where trial court had found defendant fit for trial but unfit for sentencing).) Trial counsel's failure to pursue defendant's right to request a competency hearing pursuant to section 104-21(a) does not waive the issue (see Brandon, 162 Ill.2d 450 , 205 Ill.Dec. 421 , 643 N.E.2d 712 ), and where the record indicat

1995The issue of a defendant's fitness for trial may be raised before, during, or after trial. (725 ILCS 5/104-11 (West 1992); see People v. Johnson (1984), 121 Ill.App.3d 859 , 77 Ill.Dec. 280 , 460 N.E.2d 336 (reversing for fitness hearing on issue of defendant's fitness to stand trial where trial court had found defendant fit for trial but unfit for sentencing).) Trial counsel's failure to pursue defendant's right to request a competency hearing pursuant to section 104-21(a) does not waive the issue (see Brandon, 162 Ill.2d 450 , 205 Ill.Dec. 421 , 643 N.E.2d 712 ), and where the record indicat

1995The issue of a defendant's fitness for trial may be raised before, during, or after trial. (725 ILCS 5/104-11 (West 1992); see People v. Johnson (1984), 121 Ill.App.3d 859 , 77 Ill.Dec. 280 , 460 N.E.2d 336 (reversing for fitness hearing on issue of defendant's fitness to stand trial where trial court had found defendant fit for trial but unfit for sentencing).) Trial counsel's failure to pursue defendant's right to request a competency hearing pursuant to section 104-21(a) does not waive the issue (see Brandon, 162 Ill.2d 450 , 205 Ill.Dec. 421 , 643 N.E.2d 712 ), and where the record indicat