Johnson motion in Illinois

2020See Harris, 2018 IL 121932, ¶¶ 46-48 .

2020See Harris, 2018 IL 121932, ¶¶ 46-48 .

2017Associated Coal Corp. v. Director, OWCP, 724 F.3d 561, 570 (4th Cir. 2013) (citing Perdue, 130 S. Ct. at 1673) ¶ 32 In the present case, the circuit court’s memorandum opinion and order reflects that the court clearly understood the limited use of the Johnson factors, and utilized the lodestar in its calculation of a reasonable attorney fee amount. ¶ 33 2.

2017Associated Coal Corp. v. Director, OWCP, 724 F.3d 561, 570 (4th Cir. 2013) (citing Perdue, 130 S. Ct. at 1673) ¶ 32 In the present case, the circuit court’s memorandum opinion and order reflects that the court clearly understood the limited use of the Johnson factors, and utilized the lodestar in its calculation of a reasonable attorney fee amount. ¶ 33 2.

2008See Johnson, 203 Ill. 2d at 135 ; Pierre Condominium Ass’n v. Lincoln Park West Associates, LLC, 378 Ill.

2008See Johnson, 203 Ill. 2d at 135 ; Pierre Condominium Ass’n v. Lincoln Park West Associates, LLC, 378 Ill.

2008See Johnson, 203 Ill. 2d at 135 ; Pierre Condominium Ass’n v. Lincoln Park West Associates, LLC, 378 Ill.

2008See Johnson, 203 Ill. 2d at 135 ; Pierre Condominium Ass’n v. Lincoln Park West Associates, LLC, 378 Ill.

2008Cardona v. Del Granado, 377 Ill.

2008Cardona v. Del Granado, 377 Ill.

2017Instead, “ ‘to the extent that any of [the Johnson factors] has already been incorporated into the lodestar analysis, we do not consider [those factors] a second time.’ ” McFee v. Boczar, 738 F.3d 81, 89 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, 724 F.3d 561, 570 (4th Cir. 2013), citing Perdue, 559 U.S. at 552). ¶ 32 In the present case, the circuit court’s memorandum opinion and order reflects that the court clearly understood the limited use of the Johnson factors and utilized the lodestar in its calculation of a reasonable

2017Instead, “ ‘to the extent that any of [the Johnson factors] has already been incorporated into the lodestar analysis, we do not consider [those factors] a second time.’ ” McFee v. Boczar, 738 F.3d 81, 89 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, 724 F.3d 561, 570 (4th Cir. 2013), citing Perdue, 559 U.S. at 552). ¶ 32 In the present case, the circuit court’s memorandum opinion and order reflects that the court clearly understood the limited use of the Johnson factors and utilized the lodestar in its calculation of a reasonable

2025See People v. Hillier, 237 Ill. 2d 539, 544 (2010) (“both a contemporaneous objection and a written postsentencing motion raising the issue are required” to properly preserve a sentencing error). ¶ 19 Forfeited sentencing claims may be reviewed under the plain error doctrine, a “narrow and limited exception” to forfeiture.

2024See id. § 122-1(a)(1).

2024See Hodges, 234 Ill. 2d at 19 (“[A] belief that allegations are unlikely, without more, is insufficient to justify dismissing a petition.”).

2024See People v. Allen, 2015 IL 113135, ¶ 35 .

2023As this court has noted, a “trier of fact may reject expert testimony that a defendant was insane at the time of the offense and conclude that the defendant was sane based solely on lay testimony.” People v. Camden, 219 Ill.

2022For the following reasons, we reject the State’s arguments and conclude that the motion for substitution was timely. ¶ 152 Section 2-1001(a)(2)(ii) of the Code specifies that a substitution motion “shall be granted if it is presented before trial or hearing begins and before the judge to whom it is presented has ruled on any substantial issue in the case, or if it is presented by consent of the parties.” (Emphasis added.) 735 ILCS 5/2-1001(a)(2)(ii) (West 2018); see also Palos Community Hospital, 2021 IL 126008, ¶ 25 (“When a party timely exercises his or her right to a substitution without ca

2022The Phelps court held: “It is unnecessary to determine the legality of petitioner’s original detention or the voluntary nature of his confession since a voluntary plea of guilty waives all nonjurisdictional errors. [Citation.] Likewise, that petitioner may have been motivated by his coerced confession does not invalidate his otherwise knowing and intelligent plea of guilty [citations], since that plea represented a voluntary and intelligent choice of the alternatives available to him. [Citations.]” Id. at 38 . ¶ 91 Relying on Phelps and similar precedent, our 2021 opinion regarding Johnson’s m

2022See Palos Community Hospital, 2021 IL 126008, ¶ 34 ; Shachter v. City of Chicago, 2011 IL App (1st) 103582, ¶ 22 (“where a petition for substitution of judge is erroneously denied, all orders entered subsequent to the denial are null and void” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)) ¶ 129 The trial court denied Johnson’s motion upon finding that section 2-1001(a)(2) of the Code was inapplicable to a circuit court proceeding upon a TIRC referral.

2022The State cited People v. Phelps, 51 Ill. 2d 35, 38 (1972), for the principle that “a voluntary plea of guilty waives all nonjurisdictional errors.” Thus, the State claimed that Johnson’s plea warranted dismissal of the TIRC claim with respect to the Miles case. ¶ 46 With regard to the Miggins case, the State asserted that Johnson lacked standing under the TIRC Act, insofar as the statutory definition of a “ ‘[c]laim of torture’ ” requires that the “tortured confession was used to obtain the conviction.” 775 ILCS 40/5(1) (West 2018).

2022The Phelps court held: “It is unnecessary to determine the legality of petitioner’s original detention or the voluntary nature of his confession since a voluntary plea of guilty waives all nonjurisdictional errors. [Citation.] Likewise, that petitioner may have been motivated by his coerced confession does not invalidate his otherwise knowing and intelligent plea of guilty [citations], since that plea represented a voluntary and intelligent choice of the alternatives available to him. [Citations.]” Id. at 38 . ¶ 91 Relying on Phelps and similar precedent, our 2021 opinion regarding Johnson’s m