asked defense in Illinois

1997When the court asked defense counsel whether he was offering an instruction on the lesser-included offense of possession of a controlled substance, defense counsel answered, "No.” The trial court then referred to the case of People v. Brocksmith, 162 Ill. 2d 224 (1994), and admonished defendant of his right to determine whether he wanted to request a jury instruction on the lesser-included but uncharged offense.

1997When the court asked defense counsel whether he was offering an instruction on the lesser-included offense of possession of a controlled substance, defense counsel answered, "No." The trial court then referred to the case of People v. Brocksmith , 162 Ill. 2d 224 (1994), and admonished defendant of his right to determine whether he wanted to request a jury instruction on the lesser-included but uncharged offense.

1985People v. Hornaday, 400 Ill. 361 , 81 N.E.2d 168 ; People v. Brickey, 346 Ill. 273 , 178 N.E. 483 .

1985People v. Hornaday, 400 Ill. 361 , 81 N.E.2d 168 ; People v. Brickey, 346 Ill. 273 , 178 N.E. 483 .

1985People v. Hornaday, 400 Ill. 361 , 81 N.E.2d 168 ; People v. Brickey, 346 Ill. 273 , 178 N.E. 483 .

1985People v. Hornaday, 400 Ill. 361 , 81 N.E.2d 168 ; People v. Brickey, 346 Ill. 273 , 178 N.E. 483 .

1976(City of Decatur v. Barteau, 260 Ill. 612 ; City of Marengo v. Eichler, 245 Ill. 47 ; People v. Brickey, 346 Ill. 273 .)” The history of this case is one of delay and attempts at litigation by mail even though the court was forthright in warning the plaintiffs’ counsel against such practices.

1948(City of Decatur v. Barteau, 260 Ill. 612 ; City of Marengo v. Fichler, 245 Ill. 47 ; People v. Brickey, 346 Ill. 273 .) A motion not ruled on presents no question with reference thereto arising upon review.

2024The court said, “Typically I would not allow a motion filed by the Defendant when he has counsel representing him, especially when that motion does not mention a Krankel [(People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (1984))] concern, at least one that the Court does not identify as a Krankel concern.” Defense counsel incorporated defendant’s motion into his own motion for a new trial.

2020Moreover, as the trial court correctly understood in this case, “Illinois is among the jurisdictions that do not define reasonable doubt for the jury.” People v. Downs, 2015 IL 117934, ¶ 19 . ¶ 40 Defendant next contends this matter should be remanded for further proceedings pursuant to Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 .

2021At a sidebar conference, the court asked defense counsel if he had a police report indicating that defendant told -3- 2021 IL App (2d) 190476 Johnson that she acted in self-defense.

2021At a sidebar conference, the court asked defense counsel if he had a police report indicating that defendant told -3- 2021 IL App (2d) 190476 Johnson that she acted in self-defense.

2005Camden , 115 Ill. 2d at 374 .

2005Camden, 115 Ill. 2d at 374 .

1991Stat. 1987, ch. 95x/2, par. 2— 118.1(b).) Unless a motion is brought to the attention of the court and the court is asked to rule on it, the motion is not effectively made.” Grange, 181 Ill.

1991App. 3d at 986 , 537 N.E.2d at 1156 .) The court’s decision was predicated upon its conclusion that unless a motion is brought to the attention of the court and the court is asked to rule on it, the motion is not effectively made.

1990The record discloses that the State offered an instruction to assist the jury in its deliberations on this issue, which states the following, in pertinent part: “[Testimony of a narcotics addict should be scrutinized with caution[;] however, his testimony may be sufficient to sustain a conviction if credible under the surrounding circumstances * * * >> Subsequently, the trial court asked defense counsel, “[D]o you want it [to be] given?” Defense counsel responded, “No, I’m not requesting it be given.” In order to succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must satisfy a

1990The record discloses that the State offered an instruction to assist the jury in its deliberations on this issue, which states the following, in pertinent part: “[Testimony of a narcotics addict should be scrutinized with caution[;] however, his testimony may be sufficient to sustain a conviction if credible under the surrounding circumstances * * * >> Subsequently, the trial court asked defense counsel, “[D]o you want it [to be] given?” Defense counsel responded, “No, I’m not requesting it be given.” In order to succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must satisfy a

1976(City of Decatur v. Barteau, 260 Ill. 612 ; City of Marengo v. Eichler, 245 Ill. 47 ; People v. Brickey, 346 Ill. 273 .)” The history of this case is one of delay and attempts at litigation by mail even though the court was forthright in warning the plaintiffs’ counsel against such practices.

1948(City of Decatur v. Barteau, 260 Ill. 612 ; City of Marengo v. Fichler, 245 Ill. 47 ; People v. Brickey, 346 Ill. 273 .) A motion not ruled on presents no question with reference thereto arising upon review.

2026People v. Cline, 2022 IL 126383, ¶ 25 .

2025And at the Krankel hearing, defense counsel said that he had seen Smith’s affidavit and spoken with her before trial, but that because she was placed under oath at trial and “could have said exactly what she allegedly said in the affidavit” and yet chose not to do so, he found the affidavit “not applicable.” ¶ 43 While “[t]he impeachment of witnesses is generally considered a matter of trial strategy, immune from claims of ineffective assistance of counsel” (People v. Phillips, 2017 IL App (4th) 160557 , ¶ 58), impeaching witnesses with inconsistent statements in order to test their credibilit

2024Rowe, 2023 IL 129248 , ¶ 4 n.1. -2- 2024 IL App (2d) 230485-U to case No. 21-CF-1857, “that case is not pretrial.” The court asked defense counsel “[u]nder what provision of the Act does the pretrial release apply to a post-sentence case?” Defense counsel responded: “Judge, under 730 ILCS 5/5-6-4, which is the violation, modification or revocation of probation statute, under subsection (3)(b) [sic], it indicates that the court shall conduct a hearing of the alleged violation.

2024Defense counsel responded that defendant was “anxious to move forward,” and that the defense was not seeking an evidentiary hearing—“We’re just trying to seek a ruling.” The court asked defense counsel, “Your proposal is an argument concerning the merits of your petition that’s on file, right?” and defense counsel responded, “Correct.” ¶ 13 At the next hearing, on April 13, 2023, the ASA stated that he had reviewed the transcripts, and understood that the court had indicated during the December 2022 hearing that it was going to be finding that defendant’s sentence was void, and that the court

2024While the State and defense counsel discussed a discovery issue, defendant interjected, “object[ing] to all the continuances and delays.” Defendant asserted that he “would like the right for a speedy trial.” Defendant said that he had not “put in for a speedy trial since [he] ha[d] been down here, and [he -2- 2024 IL App (2d) 230077 had] been asking for it.” The court asked defense counsel for her position on the speedy trial request, and counsel stated that she was “not at this time demanding trial,” as “[t]here [was] still investigation that [the defense was] working on.” Counsel then told d

2023While the State and defense counsel discussed a discovery issue, defendant interjected, “object[ing] to all the continuances and delays.” Defendant asserted that he “would like the right for a speedy trial.” Defendant said that he had not “put in for a speedy trial since [he] ha[d] been down here, and [he -2- 2023 IL App (2d) 230077 had] been asking for it.” The court asked defense counsel for her position on the speedy trial request, and counsel stated that she was “not at this time demanding trial,” as “[t]here [was] still investigation that [the defense was] working on.” Counsel then told d

2022Defense counsel replied, “I think we’d be happy to consider that. *** [O]ur goal is not a mistrial.” ¶ 16 When the court asked for suggested remedies, the State asked the court to “admonish the jury about what happened in court, [and] the importance of just following the instructions of the Court.” In response, defense counsel said that the decision was “in the sound discretion of the Court,” but that “perhaps some form of inquiry might be better than just an admonition.” ¶ 17 At that point, the court stated, “I have really thought about this since we left yesterday,” and recounted the facts o

2020Counsel cited People v. Moser, 356 Ill.

2020The trial court asked defense counsel if he had any authority involving cell phones, and counsel said he did not and would “have to spend more time.” -10- 2020 IL App (2d) 170379 ¶ 33 The State noted that the exclusionary rule “is there to prevent police misconduct.