first time hearing in Illinois

2019Id. § 11-9.4-1(d). ¶ 11 It is undisputed that Legoo was a convicted child sex offender who was present in a public park.

2019Id. § 11-9.4-1(d). ¶ 11 It is undisputed that Legoo was a convicted child sex offender who was present in a public park.

2005In People v. Walden , 199 Ill. 2d 392 (2002), we considered for the first time a challenge to one of these enhanced offenses.

2005In People v. Walden, 199 Ill. 2d 392 (2002), we considered for the first time a challenge to one of these enhanced offenses.

2002The Illinois Supreme Court entertained for the first time a challenge to a trial court’s failure to hold a section 104 — 21 fitness hearing in People v. Brandon, 162 Ill. 2d 450 (1994).

2002The Illinois Supreme Court entertained for the first time a challenge to a trial court's failure to hold a section 104-21 fitness hearing in People v. Brandon, 162 Ill.2d 450 , 205 Ill.Dec. 421 , 643 N.E.2d 712 (1994).

2002Matters not raised in the trial court may not be raised for the first time on appeal, ( see Riopelle v. Northwest Community Hospital , 195 Ill.

2002Matters not raised in the trial court may not be raised for the first time on appeal (see Riopelle v. Northwest Community Hospital, 195 Ill.

2026The rule further provides that “[u]pon appeal[,] any issue not raised in the motion for relief, other than errors -7- occurring for the first time at the hearing on the motion for relief, shall be deemed waived.” Id.

2026Rule 604(h)(2) requires the motion for relief to contain “the grounds for such relief” and bars, as waived, “any issue not raised in the motion for relief, other than errors occurring for the first time at the hearing on the motion for relief.” Id.

2026It allows the defendant to “identify errors in the circuit court’s detention decision,” “give[s] the court the chance to correct any errors and potentially change its ruling in the movant’s favor,” and “crystallizes and frames the issues for appeal.” Patterson, 2025 IL App (1st) 250510, ¶¶ 18-19 .

2025The rule further states: “Upon appeal, any issue not raised in the motion for relief, other than errors -9- occurring for the first time at the hearing on the motion for relief, shall be deemed waived.” (Emphasis added.) Id. ¶ 34 Thus, Rule 604(h) is clear that a prerequisite to a defendant appealing an order denying pretrial release is that all grounds for relief sought to be raised on appeal must be included in a written motion.

2025“Such a distinction is important because if [a] defendant has waived the issue, we need not review his claim for plain error.” Id. (quoting People v. Scott, 2015 IL App (4th) 130222, ¶ 21 ). ¶ 26 The court then pointed to the language of Rule 604(h)(2), which states that “any issue not raised in the motion for relief, other than errors occurring for the first time at the hearing on the motion for relief, shall be deemed waived.” (emphasis added) Ill.

2025Because this alleged error occurred for the first time at the hearing on the motion for relief, we find that the issue is not waived. ¶ 15 The purpose of a Rule 604(h)(2) hearing is to “frame issues on appeal more efficiently, give trial courts the opportunity to correct errors, and streamline the appeals process.” People v. Williams, 2024 IL App (1st) 241013, ¶ 28 .

2025The task force then proposed that, ‘[o]ther than errors occurring for the first time at the hearing on the motion for relief, issues not raised in the motion will not be considered on appeal,’ noting ‘that this leaves no room for alternative means of analysis such as plain error review or a contention of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.

2025People v. Denson, 2014 IL 116231 , ¶ 17.

2025“Such a distinction is important because if [a] defendant has waived the issue, we need not review his claim for plain error.” Id. (quoting People v. Scott, 2015 IL App (4th) 130222, ¶ 21 ). ¶ 26 The court then pointed to the language of Rule 604(h)(2), which states that “any issue not raised in the motion for relief, other than errors occurring for the first time at the hearing on the motion for relief, shall be deemed waived.” (emphasis added) Ill.

2024The task force then proposed that, “[o]ther than errors occurring for the first time at the hearing on the motion for relief, issues not raised in the motion will not be considered on appeal,” noting “that this leaves no room for alternative means of analysis such as plain error review or a contention of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.

2024The reasoning was “that an expedited, limited review of detention decisions is designed in the first instance to be review of the trial court’s decision” and it was “unreasonable to expect this expedited process to carry the - 10 - same weight and scope of argument that is seen in a direct appeal following conviction.” (Emphasis omitted.) Id. ¶ 32 It was against this backdrop that the supreme court determined that issues not raised in the petition for relief were waived on appeal.

2024“When a rule is ‘plain and unambiguous, we may not depart from [its] terms by reading into it exceptions, limitations, or conditions [the supreme court] did not express, nor may we add provisions not found in the [rule].’ ” Id. (quoting Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., 2019 IL 123186 , ¶ 24). 4 ¶ 15 Our supreme court, by rule, has clearly stated that “any issue not raised in the motion for relief, other than errors occurring for the first time at the hearing on the motion for relief, shall be deemed waived.” Ill.

2024The rule further states “[u]pon appeal, any issue not raised in the motion for relief, other than errors occurring for the first time at the hearing on the motion for relief, shall be deemed waived.” Id.

2024Upon appeal, any issue not raised in the motion for relief, other than errors occurring for the first time at the hearing on the motion for relief, shall be deemed waived.” ¶ 12 Illinois Supreme Court rules “have the force of law and are not aspirational.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Shunick, 2024 IL 129244, ¶ 22 .

2024“When a rule is ‘plain and unambiguous, we may not depart from [its] terms by reading into it exceptions, limitations, or conditions [the supreme court] did not express, nor may we add provisions not found in the [rule].’ ” Id. (quoting Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., 2019 IL 123186 , ¶ 24). 4 ¶ 15 Our supreme court, by rule, has clearly stated that “any issue not raised in the motion for relief, other than errors occurring for the first time at the hearing on the motion for relief, shall be deemed waived.” Ill.

2024“Since this court began deciding appeals under the Act, the Fourth District has consistently reviewed the trial court’s findings regarding pretrial release for an abuse of discretion.” People v. Morgan, 2024 IL App (4th) 240103, ¶ 13 .

2024Ferris, Thompson & Zweig, Ltd. v. Esposito, 2017 IL 121297, ¶ 22 .

2021As we have explained, appropriate expert testimony relating long- lasting symptoms to the character of an attack is relevant, but testimony by a lay witness is much - 14 - 2021 IL App (2d) 200146 less clearly relevant.

2020Accordingly, if a defendant is competent to communicate allegations of constitutional 12 No. 1-16-2845 violations to counsel, that defendant is competent to participate in post-conviction proceedings.” Id. at 269-70 . ¶ 33 In the case at bar, defendant raised the issue of fitness for the first time at the hearing on the State’s motion to dismiss.

2016Id. at 364 .