Court Opinion

ID: 9719949
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:10:18.593954+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:11.540583
License: Public Domain

concurring in part and dissenting in part: For the same reasons set forth in my dissent in People v. Blair, 395 Ill. App. 3d at 486-88, I believe that where a defendant does not object to the trial court’s failure to strictly comply with Rule 431, the defendant is entitled to relief under the plain-error doctrine only if the evidence was closely balanced. I note that my dissent in Blair is consistent with several decisions that have been issued since Blair. See People v. Magallanes, 397 Ill. App. 3d 72 (2009); People v. Amerman, 396 Ill. App. 3d 586 (2009); People v. Alexander, 396 Ill. App. 3d 563 (2009). Here, as the majority correctly sets forth, the evidence in this case was not closely balanced. Thus, the defendant is not entitled to any relief due to the trial court’s lack of compliance with Rule 431. Based on the resolution of this issue, I would therefore address the defendant’s contentions as to whether the case should be remanded for a fitness hearing as well as for a hearing on his pro se motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. I concur, however, with the majority’s determination that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of improper lane usage.