People v. McGuire, 92 N.E.3d 494

In April 2011 Cody R. McGuire was charged with attempted first‑degree murder, aggravated battery with a firearm, aggravated battery, and first‑degree murder; he withdrew an earlier guilty plea and proceeded to jury trial in March 2015.
During voir dire the trial court read the Zehr principles but asked prospective jurors only whether they "disagreed" with them rather than whether they "understood" and "accepted" them as required by Ill. S. Ct. R. 431(b); defense counsel repeatedly confirmed on the record that the venire had been properly admonished.
The jury convicted McGuire of second‑degree murder and aggravated battery with a firearm (not guilty of aggravated battery); the court later vacated the second‑degree murder conviction as a lesser‑included offense and sentenced McGuire to 17 years for aggravated battery with a firearm.
The trial court did not impose fines at sentencing, but the circuit clerk assessed various fees and fines against McGuire ($20 violent‑crime fee, $50 anti‑crime‑fund fine, $10 medical‑costs fine, $15 state‑police‑operations fee, $5 court‑assessment fee).
On appeal McGuire argued (1) improper Zehr voir dire, (2) excessive sentence, and (3) improper clerk‑assessed fines. The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence but vacated the clerk‑assessed fines.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (McGuire)	Held
Voir dire compliance with Rule 431(b) (Zehr principles)	Court’s admonition was adequate; defense counsel accepted it	Trial court failed to ask whether jurors "understood" and "accepted" the Zehr principles, requiring reversal under Sebby	McGuire waived the claim by affirmative acquiescence of counsel; no plain‑error review; conviction affirmed
Waiver vs. plain‑error review	Acquiescence constitutes waiver, not forfeiture; plain‑error unavailable	Argues for plain‑error review (or forfeiture) like Sebby	Affirmative acquiescence by defense counsel waives the claim; plain‑error inapplicable
Sentence excessive	Sentence (17 years) within statutory range and properly considered factors	Sentence was excessive and court failed to consider statutory mitigation, including youth	No abuse of discretion; sentencing court considered appropriate factors; 17‑year sentence affirmed
Clerk‑assessed fines and fees	Some assessments were fines but clerk lacked authority to impose them	Clerk improperly imposed fines not ordered by court	Clerk‑assessed fees/fines vacated (State concedes they were improperly imposed)

Zehr v. People, 103 Ill. 2d 472 (Illinois 1984) (establishes jury admonitions of presumption of innocence and related principles)
People v. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598 (Ill. 2010) (Rule 431(b) requires inquiry that jurors both "understand" and "accept" Zehr principles)
People v. Fern, 189 Ill. 2d 48 (Ill. 1999) (sentences within statutory limits will not be reversed absent abuse of discretion)
People v. Nussbaum, 251 Ill. App. 3d 779 (Ill. App. 1993) (trial court need not recite every mitigating or aggravating factor to show it considered them)
People v. Bowens, 407 Ill. App. 3d 1094 (Ill. App. 2011) (affirmative acquiescence by defense counsel waives appellate claim; plain‑error review not appropriate)