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.
7 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
John Glenn v. Arthur Tate, Jr., Wardengreen2 sentences1998See Caballero, 126 Ill. 2d at 278 (counsel’s performance was deficient where counsel waited until after the défendant’s conviction to investigate possible evidence in mitigation and apparently confined his inquiry to a one-hour group interview with the witnesses suggested by the defendant’s family); see also Hall v. Washington, 106 F.3d 742, 746-51 (7th Cir. 1997) (counsel’s performance held to be deficient where counsel failed to interview the defendant about the hearing or potential mitigating witnesses and undertook no independent investigation to gather mitigating evidence); Glenn v. Tate, 1998See Caballero, 126 Ill.2d at 278 , 128 Ill.Dec. 1 , 533 N.E.2d 1089 (counsel's performance was deficient where counsel waited until after the defendant's conviction to investigate possible evidence in mitigation and apparently confined his inquiry to a one-hour group interview with the witnesses suggested by the defendant's family); see also Hall v. Washington, 106 F.3d 742, 746-51 (7th Cir. 1997) (counsel's performance held to be deficient where counsel failed to interview the defendant about the hearing or potential mitigating witnesses and undertook no independent investigation to gather mi | 2 | 2 |
Anthony Hall v. Odie Washington, Directorgreen2 sentences1998See Caballero, 126 Ill. 2d at 278 (counsel’s performance was deficient where counsel waited until after the défendant’s conviction to investigate possible evidence in mitigation and apparently confined his inquiry to a one-hour group interview with the witnesses suggested by the defendant’s family); see also Hall v. Washington, 106 F.3d 742, 746-51 (7th Cir. 1997) (counsel’s performance held to be deficient where counsel failed to interview the defendant about the hearing or potential mitigating witnesses and undertook no independent investigation to gather mitigating evidence); Glenn v. Tate, 1998See Caballero, 126 Ill.2d at 278 , 128 Ill.Dec. 1 , 533 N.E.2d 1089 (counsel's performance was deficient where counsel waited until after the defendant's conviction to investigate possible evidence in mitigation and apparently confined his inquiry to a one-hour group interview with the witnesses suggested by the defendant's family); see also Hall v. Washington, 106 F.3d 742, 746-51 (7th Cir. 1997) (counsel's performance held to be deficient where counsel failed to interview the defendant about the hearing or potential mitigating witnesses and undertook no independent investigation to gather mi | 2 | 2 |
People v. Caballerogreen2 sentences1998See Caballero, 126 Ill.2d at 278 , 128 Ill.Dec. 1 , 533 N.E.2d 1089 (counsel's performance was deficient where counsel waited until after the defendant's conviction to investigate possible evidence in mitigation and apparently confined his inquiry to a one-hour group interview with the witnesses suggested by the defendant's family); see also Hall v. Washington, 106 F.3d 742, 746-51 (7th Cir. 1997) (counsel's performance held to be deficient where counsel failed to interview the defendant about the hearing or potential mitigating witnesses and undertook no independent investigation to gather mi 1998See Caballero, 126 Ill.2d at 278 , 128 Ill.Dec. 1 , 533 N.E.2d 1089 (counsel's performance was deficient where counsel waited until after the defendant's conviction to investigate possible evidence in mitigation and apparently confined his inquiry to a one-hour group interview with the witnesses suggested by the defendant's family); see also Hall v. Washington, 106 F.3d 742, 746-51 (7th Cir. 1997) (counsel's performance held to be deficient where counsel failed to interview the defendant about the hearing or potential mitigating witnesses and undertook no independent investigation to gather mi | 2 | 2 |
James Cunningham, Jr., Cross-Appellant v. Walter Zant, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center, Cross-Appelleegreen2 sentences1998See Caballero, 126 Ill. 2d at 278 (counsel’s performance was deficient where counsel waited until after the défendant’s conviction to investigate possible evidence in mitigation and apparently confined his inquiry to a one-hour group interview with the witnesses suggested by the defendant’s family); see also Hall v. Washington, 106 F.3d 742, 746-51 (7th Cir. 1997) (counsel’s performance held to be deficient where counsel failed to interview the defendant about the hearing or potential mitigating witnesses and undertook no independent investigation to gather mitigating evidence); Glenn v. Tate, 1998See Caballero, 126 Ill.2d at 278 , 128 Ill.Dec. 1 , 533 N.E.2d 1089 (counsel's performance was deficient where counsel waited until after the defendant's conviction to investigate possible evidence in mitigation and apparently confined his inquiry to a one-hour group interview with the witnesses suggested by the defendant's family); see also Hall v. Washington, 106 F.3d 742, 746-51 (7th Cir. 1997) (counsel's performance held to be deficient where counsel failed to interview the defendant about the hearing or potential mitigating witnesses and undertook no independent investigation to gather mi | 2 | 2 |
Omar Blanco, Cross-Appellant v. Harry K. Singletary, as Secretary, Department of Corrections, State of Florida, Cross-Appelleegreen2 sentences1998See Caballero, 126 Ill. 2d at 278 (counsel’s performance was deficient where counsel waited until after the défendant’s conviction to investigate possible evidence in mitigation and apparently confined his inquiry to a one-hour group interview with the witnesses suggested by the defendant’s family); see also Hall v. Washington, 106 F.3d 742, 746-51 (7th Cir. 1997) (counsel’s performance held to be deficient where counsel failed to interview the defendant about the hearing or potential mitigating witnesses and undertook no independent investigation to gather mitigating evidence); Glenn v. Tate, 1998See Caballero, 126 Ill.2d at 278 , 128 Ill.Dec. 1 , 533 N.E.2d 1089 (counsel's performance was deficient where counsel waited until after the defendant's conviction to investigate possible evidence in mitigation and apparently confined his inquiry to a one-hour group interview with the witnesses suggested by the defendant's family); see also Hall v. Washington, 106 F.3d 742, 746-51 (7th Cir. 1997) (counsel's performance held to be deficient where counsel failed to interview the defendant about the hearing or potential mitigating witnesses and undertook no independent investigation to gather mi | 2 | 2 |
People v. Peltzgreen2 sentences2023Citing Justice McLaren’s dissent in People v. Peltz, 2019 IL App (2d) 170465 , the court noted that remand was required where it was forced to speculate whether (1) counsel saw no error, told the defendant this, and advised the defendant not to withdraw his plea; (2) counsel discovered an error but the defendant decided not to pursue the issue; or (3) counsel discovered an error but did not advise the defendant about the error because the defendant had already decided on a course of action. 2023Gorss, 2022 IL 126464, ¶ 27 (citing Peltz, 2019 IL App (2d) 170465, ¶ 49 (McLaren, J., dissenting)). - 12 - 2023 IL App (2d) 220323 ¶ 32 Here, the State is asking us to presume that consultation took place. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Gorssgreen1 sentence2023Gorss, 2022 IL 126464, ¶ 27 (citing Peltz, 2019 IL App (2d) 170465, ¶ 49 (McLaren, J., dissenting)). - 12 - 2023 IL App (2d) 220323 ¶ 32 Here, the State is asking us to presume that consultation took place. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. EDGESTON
green
2 sentences2016Id. at 523-24 . ¶ 24 Defendant argues that, given Fearing’s requirement that a trial court fully admonish a defendant of the effect of waiving his appellate rights, and this court’s holding in Edgeston that Fearing’s reasoning also applies to a waiver of collateral petitions, it necessarily follows that a trial court must admonish a defendant about a waiver of the right to file collateral petitions. 2016Id. at 523-24 . ¶ 24 Defendant argues that, given Fearing’s requirement that a trial court fully admonish a defendant of the effect of waiving his appellate rights, and this court’s holding in Edgeston that Fearing’s reasoning also applies to a waiver of collateral petitions, it necessarily follows that a trial court must admonish a defendant about a waiver of the right to file collateral petitions. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Moore
green
2 sentences2013In Moore, the supreme court listed three ways in which the trial court may conduct its evaluation: (1) the court may ask defense counsel about the defendant’s claim and allow counsel to “answer questions and explain the facts and circumstances surrounding” the claim; (2) the court may have a “brief discussion” with the defendant about his claim; or (3) the court may base its evaluation “on its knowledge of defense counsel’s performance at trial and the insufficiency of the defendant’s allegations on their face.” Id. at 78-79 . 2012In Moore, the supreme court listed three ways in which a trial court may conduct its evaluation: (1) the court may ask defense counsel about the defendant’s claim and allow counsel to “answer questions and explain the facts and circumstances surrounding” the claim; (2) the court may have a “brief discussion” with the defendant about his claim; or (3) the court may base its evaluation “on its knowledge of defense counsel’s performance at trial and the insufficiency of the defendant’s allegations on their face.” Moore, 207 Ill. 2d at 78-79 . | 2 | 2012–2013 |
People v. Suaste-Gonzalez
green
1 sentence2023Gorss, 2022 IL 126464, ¶ 27 (citing Peltz, 2019 IL App (2d) 170465, ¶ 49 (McLaren, J., dissenting)). - 12 - 2023 IL App (2d) 220323 ¶ 32 Here, the State is asking us to presume that consultation took place. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.