Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 2011–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Illinois courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Cruzgreen1 sentence2026See id. (“[The defendant’s] failure to object sooner [than after receiving a sentence] is a factor that weighs heavily against a claim of inadequate comprehension.”). ¶ 96 Ultimately, defendant was able to adequately describe his issues with the guilty plea hearing. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Deleongreen1 sentence2026See People v. Deleon, 227 Ill. 2d 322, 332 (2008) (“[W]e give deference to the trial court as the finder of fact because it is in the best position to observe the conduct and demeanor of the parties and witnesses.”). ¶ 62 We also note that when the trial court asked defendant if he understood that withdrawing his guilty plea would return him to the same county jail, he responded that he did not mind going back. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bank of Viola v. Nestrick
green
2 sentences2017Id. 2017Id. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Winston
green
1 sentence2020However, “even when the certificate is valid on its face, a remand will be necessary if the record refutes the certificate.” People v. Winston, 2020 IL App (2d) 180289, ¶ 14 , 155 N.E.3d 1125 . ¶ 24 According to defendant, the record refutes postplea counsel’s Rule 604(d) certificate and demonstrates counsel “failed to amend [defendant’s] 2015 motion to present in writing the additional good-time-credit claim that [postplea counsel] argued at the motion-to-withdraw hearing.” Specifically, defendant asserts postplea counsel failed to amend the motion to include a claim that “[defense counsel] m | 1 | 2020–2020 |
In Re Marriage of Lindsey-Robinson
green
1 sentence2011Appellant also argues that the subsequent withdrawal by Dussias did not cure the premature filing. ¶ 27 Dussias claims Kristina has waived this issue and in support cites In re Marriage of Lindsey-Robinson, 331 Ill. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.