remand hearing in Illinois

1998Although the Burgess majority recognized that it could order an "automatic" new trial based on the Brandon line of cases, the court determined that "there will be some circumstances in which it can be said that the use of psychotropic medication did not affect the defendant's mental functioning in such a way that relief would be appropriate." Burgess, 176 Ill.2d at 303 , 223 Ill.Dec. 624 , 680 N.E.2d 357 .

1998Although the Burgess majority recognized that it could order an "automatic" new trial based on the Brandon line of cases, the court determined that "there will be some circumstances in which it can be said that the use of psychotropic medication did not affect the defendant's mental functioning in such a way that relief would be appropriate." Burgess, 176 Ill.2d at 303 , 223 Ill.Dec. 624 , 680 N.E.2d 357 .

2024In a prior appeal, we reversed the circuit court’s finding that Wright failed to make a prima facie showing of an equal protection violation at the first stage proceeding established by Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986); remanded the case for second and third stage proceedings under Batson; and Nos. 1-16-1404 & 1-22-1242 retained jurisdiction to resolve any further matters following the remand hearing.

1989However, defendant seeks a new trial on the grounds that the trial court denied him a fair trial by refusing to give the jury an “informer” instruction tendered by defense counsel and, in the alternative, a remand for a hearing pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky (1986), 476 U.S. 79 , 90 L.

2023The court stated: “We reject defendant’s implicit premise that the strict compliance standard of [People v. Janes, 158 Ill. 2d 27 (1994),] must be applied so mechanically as to require Illinois courts to grant multiple remands and new hearings following the initial remand hearing.

2023The court stated: “We reject defendant’s implicit premise that the strict compliance standard of [People v. Janes, 158 Ill. 2d 27 (1994),] must be applied so mechanically as to require Illinois courts to grant multiple remands and new hearings following the initial remand hearing.

2026The certificate serves as evidence that the requisite consultation has taken place.” ’ [Citation.] This court has rejected arguments that the strict compliance standard of Rule 604(d) ‘must be applied so mechanically as to require Illinois courts to grant - 16 - multiple remands and new hearings following the initial remand hearing.’ [Citation.] Where a defendant has been ‘afforded a full and fair second opportunity to present a motion for reduced sentencing,’ there is ‘limited value in requiring a repeat of the exercise, absent a good reason to do so.’ [Citation.]” Brown, 2024 IL 129585, ¶ 53

2026Our supreme court “has rejected arguments that the strict compliance standard of Rule 604(d) ‘must be applied so mechanically as to require Illinois courts to grant multiple remands and new hearings following the initial remand hearing.’ ” Id. (quoting People v. Shirley, 181 Ill. 2d 359, 369 (1998)).

2017Thus, what occurred on remand was a “mere charade performed for the purpose of reinstating an appeal.” People v. Tejada-Soto, 2012 IL App (2d) 110188 , ¶ 14. ¶8 The State relies on People v. Shirley, 181 Ill. 2d 359, 369 (1998), which found “limited value” in an additional remand where, on the first remand, the defendant “was afforded a full and fair second opportunity to present a motion for reduced sentencing.” The context for that statement is the Shirley court’s rejection of “defendant’s implicit premise that the strict compliance standard of [Janes] must be applied so mechanically as to r

2017Thus, what occurred on remand was a “mere charade performed for the purpose of reinstating an appeal.” People v. Tejada-Soto, 2012 IL App (2d) 110188 , ¶ 14. ¶8 The State relies on People v. Shirley, 181 Ill. 2d 359, 369 (1998), which found “limited value” in an additional remand where, on the first remand, the defendant “was afforded a full and fair second opportunity to present a motion for reduced sentencing.” The context for that statement is the Shirley court’s rejection of “defendant’s implicit premise that the strict compliance standard of [Janes] must be applied so mechanically as to r

2013Morales, 209 Ill. 2d at 349 .

2013Morales, 209 Ill. 2d at 349 .

2003Jamison, 181 Ill. 2d at 29 , 690 N.E.2d at 998 .

2003Jamison, 181 Ill. 2d at 29 , 690 N.E.2d at 998 .

2001App. 3d at 518 , 731 N.E.2d at 1281 , regarding the appropriateness of a remand for a hearing pursuant to section 113—3.1 of the Code.

2001In doing so, we are following this court's action in People v. Williamson, 319 Ill.App.3d 891, 899-900 , 254 Ill.Dec. 269 , 747 N.E.2d 26 (2001), which we acknowledge appears to be inconsistent with this court's previous decision in Speed, 315 Ill.App.3d at 518 , 247 Ill.Dec. 268 , 731 N.E.2d at 1281 , regarding the appropriateness of a remand for a hearing pursuant to section 113-3.1 of the Code.

2025The State agrees that the trial court had jurisdiction to consider defendant’s request for additional credit but argues that the trial court properly denied the motion because defendant was precluded from seeking further sentencing credit where the credit for time served was a term of the plea agreement. ¶ 16 “Because decisions issued without subject matter jurisdiction are void, this court has an independent duty to ensure that the trial court and this court have jurisdiction over a case.” People v. Arriaga, 2023 IL App (5th) 220076, ¶ 12 .

2024Following this court’s remand for a hearing pursuant to People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (1984), the trial court denied Mr. Ewing’s No. 1-22-0474 motion for a new trial.

2023In other words, had counsel done the things the defendant claims should have been done (including filing the petition on time or attempting to excuse the untimely filing), the postconviction proceedings would have advanced to the next stage or the trial court would have granted the defendant postconviction relief.” People v. Perez, 2023 IL App (4th) 220280, ¶ 54 , petition for leave to appeal pending, No. 129608 (filed Apr. 26, 2023). -9- While this court analyzed the issue as whether remand for unreasonable assistance was warranted and the supreme court addressed whether counsel’s performance

2023In other words, had counsel done the things the defendant claims should have been done (including filing the petition on time or attempting to excuse the untimely filing), the postconviction proceedings would have advanced to the next stage or the trial court would have granted the defendant postconviction relief. ¶ 55 Our conclusion is consistent with our supreme court’s recent decision in People v. Pingelton, 2022 IL 127680, ¶ 50 , where the court declined to apply Suarez’s rule, despite the court determining that the trial court violated the defendant’s procedural due process rights at the

2023In Schreier, the trial court violated our supreme court’s supervisory order that “remanded to the circuit court with directions to resentence defendants in accordance with law.” (Emphasis and internal quotation marks omitted.) Schreier, 92 Ill. 2d at 274 .

2023However, the court explicitly stated its “holding in no way retreats from this court’s call for strict compliance with our rules.” Shirley, 181 Ill. 2d at 370 . ¶ 57 The Third District in People v. Evans, 2017 IL App (3d) 160019, ¶ 24 , 72 N.E.3d 421 , has stated Shirley “stands for the proposition that where a defendant receives a full and fair hearing, technical noncompliance with Rule 604(d) need not give rise to multiple remands.” ¶ 58 In its brief, the State cited this court’s recent order in People v. Kocher, 2021 IL App (4th) 200610-U , as persuasive authority to support its position.

2023However, the court explicitly stated its “holding in no way retreats from this court’s call for strict compliance with our rules.” Shirley, 181 Ill. 2d at 370 . ¶ 57 The Third District in People v. Evans, 2017 IL App (3d) 160019, ¶ 24 , 72 N.E.3d 421 , has stated Shirley “stands for the proposition that where a defendant receives a full and fair hearing, technical noncompliance with Rule 604(d) need not give rise to multiple remands.” ¶ 58 In its brief, the State cited this court’s recent order in People v. Kocher, 2021 IL App (4th) 200610-U , as persuasive authority to support its position.

2021For all of the reasons set forth, the State asks that we affirm the trial court’s finding of neglect. ¶ 55 Although a trial court’s finding of neglect in a juvenile proceeding will generally not be reversed on appeal unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence (see In re A.P., 2012 IL 113875, ¶ 17 ), in this particular case, the issue raised by the parties focuses upon the admissibility of evidence at the adjudicatory hearing.

2019According to the State, case law does not compel a remand for an inquiry regarding a “hypothetical conflict of interest.” ¶ 16 Criminal defendants are entitled to effective assistance of counsel, which includes “assistance by an attorney whose allegiance to his client is not diluted by conflicting interests or inconsistent obligations.” People v. Cole, 2017 IL 120997 , ¶ 22.

2009App. 3d at 153 , citing Kelly, 201 Ill.

2001In doing so, we are following this court's action in People v. Williamson, 319 Ill.App.3d 891, 899-900 , 254 Ill.Dec. 269 , 747 N.E.2d 26 (2001), which we acknowledge appears to be inconsistent with this court's previous decision in Speed, 315 Ill.App.3d at 518 , 247 Ill.Dec. 268 , 731 N.E.2d at 1281 , regarding the appropriateness of a remand for a hearing pursuant to section 113-3.1 of the Code.

2001In doing so, we are following this court's action in People v. Williamson, 319 Ill.App.3d 891, 899-900 , 254 Ill.Dec. 269 , 747 N.E.2d 26 (2001), which we acknowledge appears to be inconsistent with this court's previous decision in Speed, 315 Ill.App.3d at 518 , 247 Ill.Dec. 268 , 731 N.E.2d at 1281 , regarding the appropriateness of a remand for a hearing pursuant to section 113-3.1 of the Code.

1998Although the Burgess majority recognized that it could order an “automatic” new trial based on the Brandon line of cases, the court determined that “there will be some circumstances in which it can be said that the use of psychotropic medication did not affect the defendant’s mental functioning in such a way that relief would be appropriate.” Burgess, 176 Ill. 2d at 303 .

1988In support, the State cites our People v. Lester (1986), 145 Ill.

1981In that decision this court also stated, “We are not concerned here with the effect of a guilty plea.” ( 74 Ill. 2d 132, 151 .) Although in People v. Stepheny (1974), 56 Ill. 2d 237 , and People v. Smith (1974), 59 Ill. 2d 236 , the court found that certain methods of “stipulation” were the equivalent of a guilty plea, not all stipulations of fact transform a conviction into a guilty plea.

1981In that decision this court also stated, “We are not concerned here with the effect of a guilty plea.” ( 74 Ill. 2d 132, 151 .) Although in People v. Stepheny (1974), 56 Ill. 2d 237 , and People v. Smith (1974), 59 Ill. 2d 236 , the court found that certain methods of “stipulation” were the equivalent of a guilty plea, not all stipulations of fact transform a conviction into a guilty plea.

1981In that decision this court also stated, “We are not concerned here with the effect of a guilty plea.” ( 74 Ill. 2d 132, 151 .) Although in People v. Stepheny (1974), 56 Ill. 2d 237 , and People v. Smith (1974), 59 Ill. 2d 236 , the court found that certain methods of “stipulation” were the equivalent of a guilty plea, not all stipulations of fact transform a conviction into a guilty plea.

1978In re Annexation to the Village of Green Oaks (1975), 25 Ill.

1973(See People v. Sessions (1968), 95 Ill.App.2d 17 , 238 N.E.2d 94 , and People v. Smith (1965), 62 Ill.App.2d 73 , 210 N.E.2d 574 .) As to the instant matter of aggravation and mitigation, the record indicates the foHowing: “The Court: There is a finding of guilty.

1973(See People v. Sessions (1968), 95 Ill.App.2d 17 , 238 N.E.2d 94 , and People v. Smith (1965), 62 Ill.App.2d 73 , 210 N.E.2d 574 .) As to the instant matter of aggravation and mitigation, the record indicates the foHowing: “The Court: There is a finding of guilty.