remand for a new hearing in Illinois

2004Respondent argues that (1) his due process rights were violated at the original commitment hearing because the SVPA did not require the trial court to find that his mental disorder makes it difficult for him to control his urge to commit sexually violent acts; (2) he was denied his right to equal protection at the conditional release hearing because the SVPA requires the State to prove its case by only clear and convincing evidence rather than by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as is required by the SDPA; and (3) he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the conditional release hearing

2004Respondent argues that (1) his due process rights were violated at the original commitment hearing because the SVPA did not require the trial court to find that his mental disorder makes it difficult for him to control his urge to commit sexually violent acts; (2) he was denied his right to equal protection at the conditional release hearing because the SVPA requires the State to prove its case by only clear and convincing evidence rather than by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as is required by the SDPA; and (3) he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the conditional release hearing

2023See Powell v. Dean Foods Co., 2012 IL 111714, ¶ 41 (“court may not consider relief not requested in the trial court”); cf. Hamilton v. Hastings, 2014 IL App (4th) 131021 , ¶¶ 30-31 (declining to address argument for directed verdict where postjudgment motion requested only new trial). ¶ 127 Nevertheless, had DSI requested it, remand would not be appropriate.

2019App. 3d 478 , 486, 244 Ill.Dec. 68 , 724 N.E.2d 956 (1999) (stating that the burden of providing a sufficient record belongs to the party appealing an administrative agency's decision). ¶ 36 The majority's granting of a judicial "mulligan" in the form of a remand for a new hearing is entirely inappropriate, and I therefore dissent.

2019App. 3d 478 , 486, 244 Ill.Dec. 68 , 724 N.E.2d 956 (1999) (stating that the burden of providing a sufficient record belongs to the party appealing an administrative agency's decision). ¶ 36 The majority's granting of a judicial "mulligan" in the form of a remand for a new hearing is entirely inappropriate, and I therefore dissent.

1990App. 3d 957 , 553 N.E.2d 30 , for the proposition that strict compliance with the rule requires a remand for a new hearing on the motion to withdraw.

1986Ed. 2d 674 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , and People v. Albanese (1984), 104 Ill. 2d 504 , 473 N.E.2d 1246 , the defendants were not denied their constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel, and a remand for a new hearing on the post-trial motion with new counsel for defendants is not warranted.

1986Ed. 2d 674 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , and People v. Albanese (1984), 104 Ill. 2d 504 , 473 N.E.2d 1246 , the defendants were not denied their constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel, and a remand for a new hearing on the post-trial motion with new counsel for defendants is not warranted.

1986Ed. 2d 674 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , and People v. Albanese (1984), 104 Ill. 2d 504 , 473 N.E.2d 1246 , the defendants were not denied their constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel, and a remand for a new hearing on the post-trial motion with new counsel for defendants is not warranted.