stating that a respondent will not be bound by his attorney’s actions when he clearly and convincingly attempted to assert his right to discharge his attorney and proceed to an immediate trial
How later courts described this case
- stating that a respondent will not be bound by his attorney’s actions when he clearly and convincingly attempted to assert his right to discharge his attorney and proceed to an immediate trial
- “A delay is considered to have been occasioned by the defendant when the defendant’s acts caused or contributed to the delay”
- supreme court held that overwhelming evidence found in record that the defendant committed the murder in brutal and heinous manner showed that he could not demonstrate prejudice for purposes of plain error analysis
- using plain error analysis and upholding extended-term sentence
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JUSTICE KILBRIDE, specially concurring:
Today’s decision follows People v. Swift, 202 Ill. 2d 378 (2002), People v. Thurow, 203 Ill. 2d 352 (2003), and People v. Crespo, 203 Ill. 2d 335 (2001). I dissented from the majority in Thurow and Crespo because I believed, and continue to believe, that an Apprendi violation can never be subject to a harmless error review. Nonetheless, having voiced my disagreement previously, I reluctantly concur in today’s opinion only because the doctrine of stare decisis requires that we adhere to established precedent, even if certain members of the court disagree. People v. Mitchell, 189 Ill. 2d 312, 338 (2000).