osad motion in Illinois

2023See Flowers, 208 Ill. 2d at 307 (where the lower court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a motion, the appellate court should dismiss the appeal). ¶ 25 Motion granted; appeal dismissed. 8

2022See Flowers, 208 Ill. 2d at 307 (where lower court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a motion, the appellate court should dismiss the appeal). ¶ 12 Motion granted; appeal dismissed. 3

2020Based on our examination of the record, OSAD’s motion to withdraw, defendant’s response to OSAD’s motion, the State’s brief, and defendant’s reply to the State’s brief, we conclude, as has OSAD, -3- that an appeal in this cause is without merit. ¶ 12 The Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Act) (725 ILCS 5/122-1 to 122-7 (West 2018)) “provides a mechanism for criminal defendants to challenge their convictions or sentences based on a substantial violation of their rights under the federal or state constitutions.” People v. Morris, 236 Ill. 2d 345, 354 , 925 N.E.2d 1069, 1074-75 (2010).

2020Based on our examination of the record, OSAD’s motion to withdraw, defendant’s response to OSAD’s motion, the State’s brief, and defendant’s reply to the State’s brief, we conclude, as has OSAD, -3- that an appeal in this cause is without merit. ¶ 12 The Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Act) (725 ILCS 5/122-1 to 122-7 (West 2018)) “provides a mechanism for criminal defendants to challenge their convictions or sentences based on a substantial violation of their rights under the federal or state constitutions.” People v. Morris, 236 Ill. 2d 345, 354 , 925 N.E.2d 1069, 1074-75 (2010).

2020See People v. Jones, 213 Ill. 2d 498, 508 , 821 N.E.2d 1093, 1099 (2004) (unlike our supreme court, the “appellate court is not free *** to excuse, in the context of postconviction proceedings, an appellate waiver caused by the failure of a defendant to include issues in his or her postconviction petition”). ¶ 22 Because defendant’s pro se postconviction petition does not make a substantial showing of a constitutional violation, we grant OSAD’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s first-stage dismissal of defendant’s postconviction petition. ¶ 23 III.

2020See People v. Jones, 213 Ill. 2d 498, 508 , 821 N.E.2d 1093, 1099 (2004) (unlike our supreme court, the “appellate court is not free *** to excuse, in the context of postconviction proceedings, an appellate waiver caused by the failure of a defendant to include issues in his or her postconviction petition”). ¶ 22 Because defendant’s pro se postconviction petition does not make a substantial showing of a constitutional violation, we grant OSAD’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s first-stage dismissal of defendant’s postconviction petition. ¶ 23 III.

2015See People v. Ryburn, 362 Ill.

2014See People v. Ryburn, 362 Ill.

2011We agree with the State and deny OSAD's motion. ¶ 10 "Rule 606(b) contemplates the filing of only one postjudgment motion directed against the final judgment—whether it be the conviction or the sentence or both * * *." People v. Miraglia, 323 Ill.App.3d 199, 205 , 257 Ill.Dec. 203 , 753 N.E.2d 398, 403 (2001).

2011We agree with the State and deny OSAD's motion. ¶ 10 "Rule 606(b) contemplates the filing of only one postjudgment motion directed against the final judgment—whether it be the conviction or the sentence or both * * *." People v. Miraglia, 323 Ill.App.3d 199, 205 , 257 Ill.Dec. 203 , 753 N.E.2d 398, 403 (2001).

2025On that basis, OSAD has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), along with a memorandum of law in support of that motion. ¶3 This court has examined OSAD’s Anders motion and the accompanying memorandum of law, Gouge’s response to OSAD’s motion, and the entire record on appeal, and has concluded that this appeal does indeed lack merit.

2025Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), OSAD moves to withdraw its representation of defendant, contending defendant’s claim the court erred in denying his motion “has no legal merit.” We agree and grant OSAD’s motion to withdraw and affirm the court’s judgment. ¶5 I.

2024See People v. Bailey, 2014 IL 115459, ¶ 29 .

2023Bailey, 2014 IL 115459, ¶ 28 . ¶ 23 CONCLUSION ¶ 24 For the foregoing reasons, we grant OSAD’s motion to withdraw and dismiss the appeal.

2025He also raises claims of prosecutorial and judicial misconduct during his guilty plea proceedings, asserting (1) “bodycam video evidence” was withheld from him until shortly before his guilty plea hearing, (2) the prosecutor left him “no choice but to plead guilty” by threatening through Hall that he would be found guilty and receive the maximum sentence if he did not plead guilty, and (3) the trial court failed to ask him if he “still wanted to plead guilty” after admonishing him regarding his right to appeal. -6- ¶ 21 “A guilty plea operates as a waiver of important rights, and is valid only

2025He also raises claims of prosecutorial and judicial misconduct during his guilty plea proceedings, asserting (1) “bodycam video evidence” was withheld from him until shortly before his guilty plea hearing, (2) the prosecutor left him “no choice but to plead guilty” by threatening through Hall that he would be found guilty and receive the maximum sentence if he did not plead guilty, and (3) the trial court failed to ask him if he “still wanted to plead guilty” after admonishing him regarding his right to appeal. -6- ¶ 21 “A guilty plea operates as a waiver of important rights, and is valid only

2024People v. Jackson, 2020 IL 124112, ¶ 91 . “[I]f it is easier to dispose of an ineffective-assistance claim on the ground that it lacks a showing of sufficient prejudice, a court may proceed directly to Strickland’s prejudice prong and need not determine whether counsel’s performance was deficient.” People v. Johnson, 2021 IL 126291, ¶ 53 (citing People v. Givens, 237 Ill. 2d 311, 331 (2010). ¶ 35 Here, OSAD’s claim of prejudice argues that trial counsel’s motion to continue the hearing undermined defendant’s “fundamental right to liberty.” In support, OSAD cites Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156,

2024Lafler, 566 U.S. at 165 . ¶ 36 Importantly, both cases focus on the outcome of the criminal proceeding.

2024People v. Carlson, 79 Ill. 2d 564, 576 (1980) “It is fundamental to our adversarial system that counsel object at trial to errors.” Id. (citing People v. Roberts, 75 Ill. 2d 1, 10 (1979)).

2024People v. Jackson, 2020 IL 124112, ¶ 91 . “[I]f it is easier to dispose of an ineffective-assistance claim on the ground that it lacks a showing of sufficient prejudice, a court may proceed directly to Strickland’s prejudice prong and need not determine whether counsel’s performance was deficient.” People v. Johnson, 2021 IL 126291, ¶ 53 (citing People v. Givens, 237 Ill. 2d 311, 331 (2010). ¶ 35 Here, OSAD’s claim of prejudice argues that trial counsel’s motion to continue the hearing undermined defendant’s “fundamental right to liberty.” In support, OSAD cites Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156,

2024People v. Jackson, 2020 IL 124112, ¶ 91 . “[I]f it is easier to dispose of an ineffective-assistance claim on the ground that it lacks a showing of sufficient prejudice, a court may proceed directly to Strickland’s prejudice prong and need not determine whether counsel’s performance was deficient.” People v. Johnson, 2021 IL 126291, ¶ 53 (citing People v. Givens, 237 Ill. 2d 311, 331 (2010). ¶ 35 Here, OSAD’s claim of prejudice argues that trial counsel’s motion to continue the hearing undermined defendant’s “fundamental right to liberty.” In support, OSAD cites Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156,

2024People v. Carlson, 79 Ill. 2d 564, 576 (1980) “It is fundamental to our adversarial system that counsel object at trial to errors.” Id. (citing People v. Roberts, 75 Ill. 2d 1, 10 (1979)).

2024People v. Carlson, 79 Ill. 2d 564, 576 (1980) “It is fundamental to our adversarial system that counsel object at trial to errors.” Id. (citing People v. Roberts, 75 Ill. 2d 1, 10 (1979)).