Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Moore and Williams, both sentenced to life in prison without parole for separate murders committed when they were 19 years old, appealed from judgments denying them leave to file successive postconviction petitions challenging their sentences. The Fourth District affirmed the judgment against Moore; the Second District reversed the judgment against Williams.The Illinois Supreme Court held that neither Moore nor Williams sufficiently pled cause for filing their successive postconviction petitions. The Supreme Court’s 2012 Miller v. Alabama decision did not change the law applicable to discretionary sentences imposed on young adult offenders, it does not provide cause for Moore and Williams to file their proposed successive postconviction petitions. Moore failed to allege facts that could support a finding that his brain development at the time of the crime required the court to treat him as a juvenile offender. View "People v. Moore" on Justia Law

Addison was convicted, in absentia, of unlawful possession of a motor vehicle, unlawful possession of a converted motor vehicle, forgery, and two counts of theft, arising out of his alleged use of counterfeit money to purchase a motorcycle, and was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment. Having failed to appear for trial, he was subsequently arrested.Addison’s appellate counsel did not file a brief and determined that there are no meritorious issues, except concerning credit that should be applied toward the prison sentences. Addison filed a postconviction petition, contending that trial and appellate counsel were deficient. Appointed postconviction counsel filed an amended petition, alleging trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress based on improper Miranda warnings, for failing to object to expert testimony regarding counterfeit currency when no expert was disclosed, and for failing to argue sufficiency of the evidence where there were discrepancies; and that the court erred in giving an accountability instruction. The petition did not assert ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The trial court dismissed the petition.Addison appealed, arguing that postconviction counsel rendered unreasonable assistance in failing to argue ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The Illinois Supreme Court agreed. Addison did not forfeit collateral review of his conviction by failing to appear at trial. While any postconviction claims that could have been raised on direct appeal are generally forfeited that forfeiture could have been overcome by framing the issues as ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise the issues on direct appeal. The appellate court properly remanded for compliance with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 651(c) without considering the merits. View "People v. Addison" on Justia Law

In March 2020, the Illinois Supreme Court began entering a series of emergency administrative orders to address disruptions to the court system caused by the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Certain orders authorized the state’s circuit courts to toll the time restrictions set forth in section 103-5(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 725 ILCS 5/103-5(a), the speedy-trial statute. Mayfield was tried and convicted in accordance with the administrative orders’ tolling provisions but after the speedy-trial term prescribed by section 103-5(a) had run.Mayfield argued that the court’s administrative orders violated the Illinois Constitution’s separation-of-powers clause by infringing on the General Assembly’s legislative authority. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed his conviction. Because section 103-5(a) involves the scheduling of trials, the statute is a matter of court procedure and within the court’s constitutional authority over all state courts. Where, as here, a statute and a supreme court rule governing court procedure cannot be reconciled, the statute must give way to the rule. The orders that tolled the speedy-trial statute did not violate the separation-of-powers clause. View "People v. Mayfield" on Justia Law

During a pat-down search of Brown, Chicago officers recovered a loaded handgun from his pocket and packets of a suspected narcotic from the driver’s seat of his car. Brown was charged with being an armed habitual criminal and possessing a controlled substance. Two attorneys appeared on Brown’s behalf. The court questioned the venire members in panels and conferred with the attorneys at a sidebar to discuss objections. The court held eight sidebars off the record before announcing that a jury had been selected. The judge then went back on the record, outside the presence of the jury, and explained the challenges for cause and for peremptory challenges. The jury found Brown guilty of being an armed habitual criminal. In his motion for a new trial, Brown did not challenge the sidebars. On appeal, Brown argued that he was deprived of his constitutional right to be present at a critical stage of the proceeding and asserted that his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the process where jurors were challenged at sidebars without Brown himself being present.The appellate court and Illinois Supreme Court affirmed his conviction. Brown did not establish prejudice; he failed to show that he was not tried by an impartial jury. Brown was present in the courtroom for all the questioning of the venire members; the record is silent as to whether Brown talked with counsel about venire members before the sidebars. Without any evidence that counsel failed to represent Brown’s interests at the sidebars, there is no basis to conclude that counsell rendered deficient performance by failing to object to the procedure. View "People v. Brown" on Justia Law

In 1993, Clark entered Catlin's Galesburg apartment to commit robbery. Clark was 24 years old; Catlin was 89. Clark killed Catlin by cutting her throat, then robbed the apartment. Clark pled guilty but mentally ill to first-degree murder and robbery. Clark suffered from antisocial personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, and fetal alcohol syndrome. He had an IQ of 79 and the intellectual ability of a 13-14-year-old; he had been severely abused as a child and had an extensive criminal history. Clark was sentenced to 90 years of imprisonment for the murder, with a consecutive 15-year prison sentence for the robbery. The appellate court affirmed. In 2001 and 2012 Clark filed unsuccessful post-conviction petitions.In a 2018 motion for leave to file a successive postconviction petition, Clark challenged the constitutionality of his sentence as inconsistent with the Illinois Constitution's proportionate penalties clause. Clark argued that his sentence was the functional equivalent of a life sentence and that the circuit court failed to give sufficient weight to the characteristics of his intellectual disabilities and his young age as mitigation factors. The appellate court and Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the denial of relief.The proportionate penalties clause requires penalties to be determined with the objective of restoring the offender to useful citizenship and provides a limitation on penalties beyond those afforded by the eighth amendment. Precedent does not establish “cause” for relaxing the res judicata doctrine with respect to the issues Clark raised, which were decided on direct appeal. Clark also cannot establish prejudice under the cause-and-prejudice test by advancing a challenge to his sentence as it relates to his intellectual disabilities. “Neurological development was not a prospect for” Clark. View "People v. Clark" on Justia Law

A 1998 Chicago ordinance includes procedures, penalties, and fees that apply to vehicle owners when a vehicle has been impounded because of its use in certain municipal code offenses. Within 15 days of the impoundment, an owner may request a preliminary hearing, at which an administrative law officer determines whether there is probable cause to believe the vehicle was used in an enumerated offense. If the officer finds probable cause, the owner may regain possession of the vehicle by paying the administrative penalty applicable to the municipal code offense, plus towing and storage fees. If probable cause is lacking, the vehicle is returned to the owner; no penalty or fees are owed. An administrative penalty constitutes a debt that may be enforced as a judgment.Illinois Vehicle Code, section 11-207 provides that while local authorities can adopt additional traffic regulations, “no local authority shall enact or enforce any ordinance rule or regulation in conflict with the provisions of this Chapter unless expressly authorized herein.” Home rule units, such as Chicago, cannot adopt inconsistent local police regulations. In 2012, the Vehicle Code was amended to authorize municipalities to “provide by ordinance procedures for the release of properly impounded vehicles” and to impose “a reasonable administrative fee related to … administrative and processing costs.”The appellate court and Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of a purported class action challenging the ordinance. A home rule unit’s imposition of penalties does not interfere with and is not inconsistent with state efforts to allow municipalities to recoup the remedial costs incurred by an impoundment. The imposition of the penalty is a valid exercise of Chicago’s home rule authority and does not constitute a criminal penalty for purposes of double jeopardy. View "Lintzeris v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law

In 2011, police officers stopped Villareal while he was driving a car the officers believed had been involved in a neighborhood shooting. During the traffic stop, officers searched the car and recovered a fully loaded handgun. Villareal was charged with several offenses related to the firearm. Villareal pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm by a gang member (720 ILCS 5/24-1.8(a)(1). The circuit court sentenced Villareal to four years in prison. Villareal subsequently filed a petition, arguing his sentence was improperly increased by mandatory supervised release.The circuit court dismissed the petition. On appeal, Villareal challenged section 24-1.8(a)(1) as facially unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment because it impermissibly criminalized his status as a gang member. He also argued that it violated substantive due process. The appellate court rejected Villareal’s Eighth Amendment challenge and declined to address the due process claim, as it was raised for the first time in Villareal’s supplemental brief.The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. The statute is rationally related to a legitimate state interest in curbing gang violence in public places and is not unconstitutionally vague. The court noted plain language explaining when a person is an active gang member. Villareal did not allege or show all gang membership is involuntary. View "People v. Villareal" on Justia Law

In July 2017, Cross was charged with murder. He remained in custody through trial. At a preliminary hearing, the court ordered Cross to respond to the state’s motion for pretrial discovery within 30 days, with written notice of any defenses. The court granted Cross six continuances, attributing each delay to Cross for purposes of the 120-day statutory speedy-trial term. On July 16, 2018, the defense indicated "ready for trial" and demanded a speedy trial. Trial was set for September 24, 2018; the 70-day period after July 16 would be attributable to the state. On August 21, Cross first raised an alibi defense. The state argued that the alibi would have been known to Cross for a year, that the late disclosure would require further investigation, and that the time from July 16 to September 24 should be attributable to Cross The court attributed the 36-day period before August 21 to the state but attributed the subsequent 34-day period to Cross. The court set a new trial date of November 6; the delay after September 24 was attributed to the state. Defense counsel did not object to a statement that the speedy-trial term would run on November 29.On appeal following his conviction, Cross first argued that his statutory speedy-trial rights were violated. The appellate court and Illinois Supreme Court rejected his argument that there is no delay unless a trial date is postponed. Cross received effective assistance of counsel. View "People v. Cross" on Justia Law

The Northwestern Illinois Area Agency on Aging (NIAAA), sought mandamus relief against the Department on Aging. The Department had designated NIAAA as a regional administrative agency (RAA) for administering programs created by the Adult Protective Services Act. NIAAA had filed petitions for administrative hearings; the Department rejected both petitions, finding that neither presented a “contested case” for which an administrative hearing is required. The first petition requested a recall of a new Protective Act Program Services Manual. NIAAA claims that the Department retaliated by terminating its grant and its position as RAA. NIAAA requested the Department to adopt administrative rules for “contested case” hearings and to compensate NIAAA for the lost funding. In its second petition, NIAAA requested a hearing on the Department’s rejection of NIAAA’s designation of Protective Act providers.The Illinois Supreme Court reinstated the dismissal of the mandamus complaint. The Department has adopted the requested administrative rules, so those allegations are moot. The Illinois Administrative Procedure Act, 5 ILCS 100/1-1 does not require hearings on the other allegations. Nothing in the relevant statutes and regulations provides that the Department's decision regarding funding and service provider designations are to be made only after an opportunity for a hearing. Under the U.S. and Illinois Constitutions, procedural due process protections are triggered only when a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest is implicated. NIAAA does not have a constitutionally protected interest in the funding or its service provider designation. View "Nyhammer v. Basta" on Justia Law

Based on allegations that he sexually abused his grandson, J.M., McKown was charged with three counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child (720 ILCS 5/11-1.40(a)(1)), three counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse (11-1.60(c)(1)(i)), and one count of child pornography (11- 20.1(a)(1)(ii)). There were inconsistencies in J.M.’s testimony. An officer testified that McKown had consented to a search of his basement, where the officer saw “multiple cutout pictures of young female children’s faces that had slits cut into the mouths and cutout images of male penises inserted into those slits.”The appellate court and Illinois Supreme Court affirmed McKown’s convictions. The pictures of young children that McKown modified to depict sexual conduct constitute child pornography under section 11-20.1 and section 11-20.1 is consistent with the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. McKown possessed images of actual, identifiable children that he altered to depict sexual conduct. Sufficient corroboration existed to satisfy the corpus delicti rule as to McKown’s convictions for various sexual offenses. View "People v. McKown" on Justia Law