4090905, people v. hobbs

Th is order was filed under Su prem e C ourt Ru le 23 and may not be cited as precedentby any p arty e xce pt in t h e limitedcircumstances allowed under Rule 23(e )(1).
_________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE POPE delivered the judgment of the court.
Presiding Justice Knecht and Justice Steigmann (1) Stipulation was not tantamount to a guilty plearequiring that defendant receive personal admonishmentsand that he agree to its entry; (2) Defense counsel validly waived defendant'sconfrontation right by entering into stipulation; and (3) Defense counsel's failure to inform defendant ofthe specific content of stipulation was not deficient. Following a July 2009 bench trial, the trial court found defendant, Dehrone M. Hobbs, guilty of two counts of delivery of a controlled substance (720 ILCS 570/401(d)(i) (West 2008)). In September 2009, the court sentenced defendant to two concurrent 12-year terms of imprisonment.
Defendant appeals, arguing he was denied his constitutional right to confront witnesses when defense counsel stipulated to the admission of evidence without defendant's In December 2008, a grand jury indicted defendant on three counts of delivery of a controlled substance, alleging he knowingly and unlawfully possessed with the intent to deliver a substance containing (1) methylenedioxymethamphetamine (count I), (2) clonazepam (count II), and (3) promethazine (count III). In July 2009, defendant waived his right to a jury trial and the parties proceeded to a bench trial. Upon the tender of a stipulation to the court, the following exchange occurred: Attorney)]: I prepared a stipulation that Mr.
McEldowney [(defense counsel)] has reviewed that's not the issue in this case and that the issue is going to be identification of the defendant as the person who did the deal.
Honor. We would stipulate to that, the entry of that document in lieu of testimony by the forensic expert and witnesses regarding chain assessment that the defense in this case was defense and that, therefore, whether or not it is actually a controlled substance is not The defendant is adamant he did not provide Following a recess, the trial court granted the State's motion to dismiss count III of the indictment. The court received evidence and testimony concerning the remaining counts. Bloomington police detective Todd McCluskey testified that he worked undercover in the vice and narcotics unit on November 19, 2008. That same day he purchased 10 pills from defendant. Bloomington police detective Todd Walcott testified that he was present on November 19, 2008, and equipped with a video surveillance camera. Walcott identified defendant as the After the State offered the stipulated evidence, the previously received an evidence stipulation signed by counsel which references People's exhibits one, two, 2A, three and 3A, which include the testimony of Ms. Denise Hanley signed off on the stipulation. I guess for The trial court found defendant guilty of two counts of delivery of a controlled substance and later sentenced defendant to two concurrent 12-year extended terms based on his prior On September 22, 2009, defendant pro se filed a posttrial motion alleging "unfair trial" and "insufficient counsel." In an exchange with the trial court on November 3, 2009, defendant objected to defense counsel's stipulation to the chain of custody and to the chemical composition of the recovered substances. Defense counsel responded the decision to stipulate was a matter of trial strategy. The court found defendant's Defendant argues his sixth-amendment right of confrontation was violated by defense counsel's stipulation to the chain of custody and to the chemical composition of the When the issue raised is purely one of law, the court reviews the record de novo. People v. Daniels, 187 Ill. 2d 301, "[D]efense counsel may waive a defendant's right of confrontation as long as the defendant does not object and the decision to stipulate is a matter of trial tactics and strategy." People v. Campbell, 208 Ill. 2d 203, 217, 802 N.E.2d 1205, 1213 (2003). However, a defendant must personally waive the right of confrontation "when the State's entire case is to be presented by stipulation and the defendant does not present or preserve a defense *** or where the stipulation includes a statement that the evidence is sufficient to convict the defendant." Campbell, "We attach[] no other restrictions to defense admission of evidence, and, except in those specified instances where the stipulation is tantamount to a guilty plea, we impose[] no obligations on the trial court or counsel to admonish the defendant and ensure that the advisement is made a part of the record." People v. Phillips, 217 Ill. 2d 270, 283, 840 Neither of the exceptions set forth in Campbell is applicable in this case. Defendant's theory at trial was misidentification. In addition to the stipulation as to the chain of custody and the chemical composition of the recovered substances, the State presented the testimony of the police officers involved in the drug transaction. The stipulation was not tantamount to a guilty plea since the defendant's position at trial was he was not the individual involved in the drug transaction. Defendant was present in the courtroom each time defense counsel addressed the stipulation of evidence but failed to raise an objection to the stipulation.
We conclude defense counsel's stipulation to the chain of custody and to the composition of the recovered substance did not violate defendant's sixth-amendment right to confront the For the reasons stated above, we affirm the trial court's judgment. As part of our judgment, we award the State its $50 statutory assessment against defendant as costs of this

Source: http://state.il.us/court/R23_Orders/AppellateCourt/2011/4thDistrict/March/4090905_R23.pdf

Microsoft word - program.doc

09:30-10:00 Registration at Open Lounge (3F) 10:00-10:10 Opening at Ferrite Memorial Hall (3F) 10:10-10:20 Break at Open Lounge 10:20-11:20 Oral Session I at Ferrite Memorial Hall OM-1 A Multi-Agent Model for Emotion Generation Nair, Dong Hwa Kim, Yutaka Hatakeyama, and Kaoru Hirota OM-2 Area Traffic Signal Optimization Based on Adaptive PSO With Mutation Lingling Ma, Yaping Dai, Ya


Pediatr Nephrol (2003) 18:1143–1146DOI 10.1007/s00467-003-1279-x Hammad O. Alshaya · Jaudah A. Al-Maghrabi Jameela A. Kari Intravenous pulse cyclophosphamide—is it effective in children with steroid-resistant nephrotic syndrome?Received: 3 March 2003 / Revised: 9 July 2003 / Accepted: 10 July 2003 / Published online: 17 September 2003© IPNA 2003 Abstract Treatment of steroid-resistant

Copyright © 2010-2014 Metabolize Drugs Pdf