DISPOSITION OF PETITIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL, 96 Ill.2d 570 (1983)

Supreme Court of Illinois.
1983.

(59128) People v. Killen ……………………………………. Denied. (59422) People v. Lotts …………………………………….. Denied. (59301) People v. Lucien ……………………………………. Denied. (59397) People v. Martin ……………………………………. Denied. (59295) People v. McGinnis …………………………………. Allowed. (59438) People v. Miller, Gary L. ……………………………. Denied. (59292) People v. Minnis ……………………………………. Denied. (59349) People v. M.W.J. ……………………………………. Denied. (59300) People v. Pauley ……………………………………. Denied. (59289) People v. Pigue …………………………………….. Denied. (59313) People v. Plucinski …………………………………. Denied. (59473, 59480) People v. Pollution Control Board ……………… Allowed. (59440) People v. Poree …………………………………….. Denied. (59302) People v. Pughsley ………………………………….. Denied. (59419) People v. Rainer ……………………………………. Denied. (59105) People v. Randolph ………………………………….. Denied. (59271) People v. Raybon ……………………………………. Denied. (59402) People v. Rial ……………………………………… Denied. (59355) People v. Rivera ……………………………………. Denied. (59387) People v. Rizzio ……………………………………. Denied. (58927) People v. Ruiz ……………………………………… Denied. (59269) People v. Sampson …………………………………… Denied. (59252, 59332, 59333) People v. Sanders, James ………………… Denied. (59404) People v. Schemmel ………………………………….. Denied. (59483) People v. Sepulveda …………………………………. Denied. (59317) People v. Smith, Harold ……………………………… Denied. (59338) People v. Spiotto …………………………………… Denied. (59411) People v. Starks ……………………………………. Denied. (59281) People v. Strauser ………………………………….. Denied. (59405) People v. Strohl ……………………………………. Denied.

JUSTICE SIMON, dissenting:

I dissent here because the defendant’s appointed counsel had also previously represented one of the State’s important witnesses in a different case. Although the representation of the defendant and the witness may not have overlapped in time (the record is not clear on this point), the witness’ prior involvement with the law could and should have been used to impeach him. For that reason I think we should allow the

Page 571

defendant’s petition for leave to appeal in order to decide whether his attorney had either a per se or actual conflict of interest.

jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle

Recent Posts

EDWARDS v. LOMBARDI, 1 N.E.3d 641 (2013)

1 N.E.3d 641 (2013)2013 IL App (3d) 120518376 Ill. Dec. 929 Justin EDWARDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.…

2 weeks ago

Newhall v. Galena & Chicago Union Railroad, 14 Ill. 273 (1853)

June 1853 Illinois Supreme Court 14 Ill. 273 Horatio Newhall, Appellant, v. The Galena and…

3 years ago

MARLER v. WULF, 2021 IL APP (1st) 200200-U (2021)

2021 IL App (1st) 200200-U BRIAN MARLER, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v. ZACHARY WULF and BOS GROUP, LLC,…

3 years ago

IN RE MARRIAGE OF LEWIN, 107 N.E.3d 338 (Ill. App. 2018)

107 N.E.3d 338 (2018)424 Ill.Dec. 252018 IL App (3d) 170175 IN RE MARRIAGE OF Fanny…

3 years ago

PEOPLE v. CONROY, 145 N.E. 3d 537 (2019)

145 N.E.3d 537 (2019)2019 IL App (2d) 180693438 Ill.Dec. 1 The PEOPLE of the State…

4 years ago

MINERAL POINT RAILROAD COMPANY v. KEEP, 22 Ill. 9 (1859)

22 Ill. 9 Supreme Court of Illinois. MINERAL POINT RAILROAD COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v.…

5 years ago