issue under the plain error in Illinois

2026Defendant acknowledges the argument has been forfeited and asks that we analyze the issue under the plain error doctrine. ¶ 31 The plain error doctrine allows a reviewing court to ignore procedural forfeiture and review unpreserved errors when “ ‘(1) a clear or obvious error occurs and the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) a clear or obvious error occurs and that error is so egregious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged the integ

2024However, defendant asks us to review the issue under the plain-error rule, which allows appellate review of an unpreserved error when “(1) a clear or obvious error occurred and the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) a clear or obvious error occurred and that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.” People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d

2025Defendant requests that we review the issue under the plain-error doctrine because, she asserts, the evidence was closely balanced. “[T]he plain-error doctrine bypasses normal forfeiture principles and allows a reviewing court to consider unpreserved error when either (1) the evidence is close, regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) the error is serious, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.” People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 186-87 (2005).

2022However, he requests we review the issue under the plain error doctrine. ¶ 21 The plain error doctrine “allows a reviewing court to reach a forfeited error affecting substantial rights in two circumstances.” People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 178 (2005).

2024See People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176, 186 (1988) (“[B]oth a trial objection and a written post-trial motion raising the issue are necessary to preserve an issue for review.”). ¶ 27 Recognizing that the issue is forfeited, defendant asks us to consider the issue under the plain-error rule.

2023See People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176, 186 (1988) (“[B]oth a trial objection and a written post-trial motion raising the issue are necessary to preserve an issue for review.”). ¶ 27 Recognizing that the issue is forfeited, defendant asks us to consider the issue under the plain-error rule.

2023Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d at 611 . ¶ 104 Once again, the defendant argues that we should review this issue under the plain-error exception to the general forfeiture rule.

2020Nevertheless, she argues that the issue should not be considered forfeited because “it falls under the constitutional error exception to waiver.” In the alternative, she contends that we may review the issue under the plain error doctrine, which “bypasses normal forfeiture principles and allows a reviewing court to consider unpreserved claims of error in specific circumstances.” People v. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598, 613 (2010). ¶ 50 The plain-error doctrine applies when “ ‘(1) a clear or obvious error occurred and the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the sc

2020While the failure to raise an issue in the trial court ordinarily results in procedural default (In re R.A.B., 197 Ill. 2d 358, 362 (2001)), defendant asks us to review the issue under the plain error doctrine.

2008Although this procedural history normally results in procedural default (In re R.A.B., 197 Ill. 2d 358, 362 (2001)), defendant asks us to review the issue under the plain error doctrine.

2013People v. Lewis, 234 Ill. 2d 32, 42 (2009).

2011People v. Lewis, 234 Ill. 2d 32, 42 , 912 N.E.2d 1220, 1226 (2009).

2025People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539, 544 (2010); see also 730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-50(d) (West 2016) (“A defendant’s challenge to the correctness of a sentence or to any aspect of the sentencing hearing shall be made by a written motion filed with the circuit court clerk within 30 days following the imposition of sentence.”). ¶ 54 Mr. Dawson nonetheless asks that we review this issue under the plain-error doctrine, which allows a reviewing court to consider unpreserved errors when a clear or obvious error occurred and “either that (1) the evidence at the sentencing hearing was closely balanced, or (2)

2025People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539, 544 (2010); see also 730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-50(d) (West 2016) (“A defendant’s challenge to the correctness of a sentence or to any aspect of the sentencing hearing shall be made by a written motion filed with the circuit court clerk within 30 days following the imposition of sentence.”). ¶ 54 Mr. Dawson nonetheless asks that we review this issue under the plain-error doctrine, which allows a reviewing court to consider unpreserved errors when a clear or obvious error occurred and “either that (1) the evidence at the sentencing hearing was closely balanced, or (2)

2023People v. Averett, 237 Ill. 2d 1, 18 (2010).

2023People v. Averett, 237 Ill. 2d 1, 18 (2010).

2007Despite this forfeiture, the defendant urges us to consider this issue under the plain-error rule, which permits review where the trial evidence was closely balanced or when the error is “so substantial that it affected the fundamental fairness of the proceeding, and remedying the error is necessary to preserve the integrity of the judicial process.” People v. Hall, 194 Ill. 2d 305, 335 , 743 N.E.2d 521 (2000); 134 Ill. 2d R. 615(a).

2007Despite this forfeiture, the defendant urges us to consider this issue under the plain-error rule, which permits review where the trial evidence was closely balanced or when the error is “so substantial that it affected the fundamental fairness of the proceeding, and remedying the error is necessary to preserve the integrity of the judicial process.” People v. Hall, 194 Ill. 2d 305, 335 , 743 N.E.2d 521 (2000); 134 Ill. 2d R. 615(a).

2014He argues, however, that a void order may be challenged at any time and a “sentence which does not conform to a statutory requirement is void.” People v. Arna, 168 Ill. 2d 107, 113 (1995). &25 Alternatively, defendant seeks review of this issue under the plain error rule, arguing that the imposition of an unauthorized sentence affected substantial rights where the State’s alleged indictment error prevented him from exercising his right to request a bifurcated proceeding. -8- No. 1-08-2747 Specifically, defendant contends that if he had known the State would seek an enhanced sentence based on h

2014He argues, however, that a void order may be challenged at any time and a “sentence which does not conform to a statutory requirement is void.” People v. Arna, 168 Ill. 2d 107, 113 (1995). &25 Alternatively, defendant seeks review of this issue under the plain error rule, arguing that the imposition of an unauthorized sentence affected substantial rights where the State’s alleged indictment error prevented him from exercising his right to request a bifurcated proceeding.

2023People v. Ramsey, 239 Ill. 2d 342, 412 (2010). ¶ 20 The plain-error doctrine applies when a clear or obvious error has occurred, and either (1) the evidence was so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant or (2) the error was so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process.

2022See People v. Ramsey, 239 Ill. 2d 342, 412 (2010) (“although defendant did not argue plain error in his opening brief, he has argued plain error in his reply brief, which is sufficient to allow us to review the issue for plain error”).

2003"For this court to review an issue under the plain error doctrine, `the asserted error must be something "fundamental to the integrity of the judicial process." [Citation.]'" Gonzalez, 326 Ill.App.3d at 635 , 260 Ill.Dec. 354 , 761 N.E.2d 198 , quoting Keene, 169 Ill.2d at 17 , 214 Ill.Dec. 194 , 660 N.E.2d 901 .

2003"For this court to review an issue under the plain error doctrine, `the asserted error must be something "fundamental to the integrity of the judicial process." [Citation.]'" Gonzalez, 326 Ill.App.3d at 635 , 260 Ill.Dec. 354 , 761 N.E.2d 198 , quoting Keene, 169 Ill.2d at 17 , 214 Ill.Dec. 194 , 660 N.E.2d 901 .

1989Moreover, even if waiver were an appropriate argument in this case, this court would elect to address the issue under the plain error doctrine (People v. Smith (1985), 106 Ill. 2d 327 , 478 N.E.2d 357 ) and would reach the same conclusion.

1989Moreover, even if waiver were an appropriate argument in this case, this court would elect to address the issue under the plain error doctrine (People v. Smith (1985), 106 Ill. 2d 327 , 478 N.E.2d 357 ) and would reach the same conclusion.

2018In response, defendant admits that he waived this issue for appeal by failing to object at trial, and asks us either to consider the issue under the plain error doctrine (People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565 (2007)) or to consider his failure to object as ineffective assistance of his trial counsel (Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984)). ¶ 50 The plain error doctrine allows a reviewing court to consider an unpreserved error when (1) a clear or obvious error occurred and the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against

2017In response, defendant admits that he waived this issue for appeal by failing to object at trial, and asks us either to consider the issue under the plain error doctrine ( People v. Piatkowski , 225 Ill. 2d 551 , 565, 312 Ill.Dec. 338 , 870 N.E.2d 403 (2007) ) or to consider his failure to object as ineffective assistance of his trial counsel ( Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 , 686, 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) ). ¶ 50 The plain error doctrine allows a reviewing court to consider an unpreserved error when (1) a clear or obvious error occurred and the evidence is so closely ba

2004See People v. Herrett, 137 Ill. 2d 195 , 561 N.E.2d 1 (1990).

2004See People v. Herrett, 137 Ill. 2d 195 , 561 N.E.2d 1 (1990).

2021See People v. Johnson, 218 Ill. 2d 125, 139 (2005) (“Clearly, there can be no plain error if there is no error ***.”).

2021People v. Johnson, 218 Ill. 2d 125, 139 (2005) (“Clearly, there can be no plain error if there is no error”).

2020We decline to do so, however, as “plain-error review is forfeited when the defendant invites the error.” People v. Harding, 2012 IL App (2d) 101011, ¶ 17 . “ ‘[A] defendant’s invitation or agreement to the procedure later challenged on appeal “goes beyond mere waiver.” ’ ” Id. (quoting Harvey, 211 Ill. 2d at 385 , quoting Villarreal, 198 Ill. 2d at 227 ).

2012People v. Harvey, 211 Ill.2d 368, 389 , 286 Ill.Dec. 124 , 813 N.E.2d 181, 194 (2004).

2004People v. Blackwell, 164 Ill. 2d 67 , 646 N.E.2d 610 (1995).

2004People v. Blackwell, 164 Ill. 2d 67 , 646 N.E.2d 610 (1995).

2008However, we must first determine whether error occurred at all (Smith, 372 Ill.

2008We first consider whether there was error (Smith, 372 Ill.

2002R.A.B., 197 Ill. 2d at 363 , citing People v. Smith, 106 Ill. 2d 327, 333 (1985); People v. Taylor, 291 Ill.

2002People v. Smith, 106 Ill. 2d 327, 333 (1985); People v. Taylor, 291 Ill.

2006The plain error rule allows a reviewing court to consider trial errors not properly preserved when A >(1) the evidence in a criminal case is closely balanced or (2) where the error is so fundamental and of such magnitude that the accused was denied a right to a fair trial.= @ People v. Harvey, 211 Ill. 2d 368, 387 , 813 N.E.2d 181 (2004), quoting People v. Byron, 164 Ill. 2d 279, 293 , 647 N.E.2d 946 (1995).

2006The plain error rule allows a reviewing court to consider trial errors not properly preserved when A >(1) the evidence in a criminal case is closely balanced or (2) where the error is so fundamental and of such magnitude that the accused was denied a right to a fair trial.= @ People v. Harvey, 211 Ill. 2d 368, 387 , 813 N.E.2d 181 (2004), quoting People v. Byron, 164 Ill. 2d 279, 293 , 647 N.E.2d 946 (1995).

1997See 134 Ill. 2d R. 615(a); People v. Young, 128 Ill. 2d 1, 46-47 (1989); People v. Szabo, 113 Ill. 2d 83 (1986).

1997See 134 Ill. 2d R. 615(a); People v. Young , 128 Ill. 2d 1, 46-47 (1989); People v. Szabo , 113 Ill. 2d 83 (1986).

1991(People v. Fields (1990), 135 Ill. 2d 18, 59-60 , 552 N.E.2d 791, 809-10 .) Nevertheless, we review the issue under the plain error doctrine. 73 Ill. 2d R. 615(a).

1991(People v. Fields (1990), 135 Ill. 2d 18, 59-60 , 552 N.E.2d 791, 809-10 .) Nevertheless, we review the issue under the plain error doctrine. 73 Ill. 2d R. 615(a).

1998People v. Mitchell , 155 Ill. 2d 344 , 614 N.E.2d 1213 (1993); People v. E.Z. , 262 Ill.

1998People v. Mitchell, 155 Ill. 2d 344, 354 (1993).