People v. Hill
408 Ill. App. 3d 23
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Hill was convicted after a jury trial of possession with intent to deliver and delivery of heroin; sentenced as a Class X offender to two concurrent 12-year terms; on appeal challenged Rule 431(b) compliance, ruling on prior convictions for impeachment, sentence excessiveness, and mittimus credits and counts; Supreme Court supervisory order directed reconsideration; appellate court affirmed conviction and modified mittimus; factual record includes drug-transaction evidence and lab results showing heroin quantities; Hill did not testify at trial, affecting preservation of some issues.
- Jury selection and Rule 431(b) concerns arose when the judge asked several panels about Zehr principles but did not individually confirm acceptance of all four principles for each juror.
- Prior-convictions impeachment issue was raised in limine; the trial court partially excluded some convictions and deferred others based on testimony; Hill chose not to testify.
- Sentencing fell within statutory range (Class X: 6–30 years) given Hill's criminal history; court noted mitigating factors but affirmed concurrent 12-year terms.
- Mittimus presentencing credit issue: the Department records showed admission after sentencing, leading to correction to 304 days presentencing credit; double-credit concerns were discussed and resolved.
- Mittimus also corrected to reflect one possession-with-intent-to-deliver conviction and one delivery conviction instead of two manufacture/delivery convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 431(b) compliance not met | Hill | State | No automatic reversal; plain error not shown. |
| Knowing right to testify forfeited | Hill | State | Forfeited due to Hill not testifying. |
| Sentence excessive | Hill | State | Within statutory range; no abuse of discretion. |
| Presentencing credit corrected | Hill | State | Mittimus corrected to 304 days presentencing credit. |
| Convictions on mittimus corrected | Hill | State | Corrected to one possession-with-intent-to-deliver and one delivery conviction. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Thompson, 238 Ill.2d 598 (2010) (rule 431(b) requires explicit individual juror inquiries and acceptance of principles)
- People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill.2d 551 (2007) (plain error framework applies to nonstructural errors)
- People v. Herron, 215 Ill.2d 167 (2005) (plain error standard; prejudice inquiry)
- People v. Averett, 237 Ill.2d 1 (2010) (blanket policy on rulings did not violate rights; remedy issues controller)
- People v. Williams, 394 Ill.App.3d 480 (2009) (presentencing credit timing; Mittimus timing matter)
- People v. Jones, 397 Ill.App.3d 651 (2009) (presentencing credit structure; avoid double credit)