# People v. Kaczmarek

> Illinois Supreme Court · October 2, 2003 · 207 Ill. 2d 288

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9819103

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. HENRY KACZMAREK, Appellee and Cross-Appellant
- **Court:** Illinois Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 2, 2003
- **Citations:** 207 Ill. 2d 288; 278 Ill. Dec. 329; 798 N.E.2d 713; 2003 Ill. LEXIS 1426
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Kilbride
- **Judges:** Rarick, Kilbride
- **Cited by:** 53 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9819103

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

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).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9819103. Public record. Not legal advice.