People v. Champs

12 Citing cases

  1. People v. Payne

    294 Ill. App. 3d 254 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998)   Cited 56 times
    Holding that when a defendant agrees to a potential range of sentences, defendant implicitly concedes that a sentence imposed within the range cannot be excessive and that defendant is entitled to complain only if the agreement has been broken

    Defendant directs our attention to People v. Andrews, 132 Ill.2d 451, 466, 548 N.E.2d 1025, 1032 (1989). The State directs our attention to People v. Champs, 273 Ill. App.3d 502, 510, 652 N.E.2d 1184, 1191 (1995). In Andrews, defendant entered a car, which was stopped for a traffic signal, and pointed a gun at the passenger and driver.

  2. People v. Lach

    302 Ill. App. 3d 587 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998)   Cited 15 times
    Finding that section 11-501.4 was satisfied where the nurse testified that tests were ordered in the regular course of providing emergency medical treatment, were performed by the lab routinely used, and a report was prepared by lab personnel

    For reasons set forth later in this opinion, we remand the case for a new trial. We first address defendant's proof-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt contention to protect his constitutional right against double jeopardy ( People v. Champs, 273 Ill. App.3d 502, 511, 652 N.E.2d 1184 (1995)). He argues the State failed to disprove his alibi beyond a reasonable doubt and that,even assuming he was at the scene of the accident, it was not proven he was under the influence of alcohol.

  3. People v. Childress

    276 Ill. App. 3d 402 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995)   Cited 36 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a defendant will lose his right to counsel of choice if he attempts to "thwart justice, delay or embarrass the effective administration of justice"

    We first address defendant's proof beyond a reasonable doubt contention to protect his constitutional right against double jeopardy. ( People v. Champs (1995), 273 Ill. App.3d 502, 511, 652 N.E.2d 1184.) Although defendant sets forth two separate arguments on this issue, we find them related and treat them together.

  4. U.S. v. McCann

    Case No. 06 C 6058 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 3, 2007)

    These are precisely the types of facts Illinois courts have found to constitute exceptionally brutal and heinous behavior. See People v. Champs, 273 Ill. App. 3d 502, 510, 652 N.E.2d 1184, 1191 (1995) (behavior is exceptionally brutal and heinous where a shooting is systematic, unprovoked, continues after the victim has been struck, and lacks any logical reason). Had Gray's attorney raised an Apprendi issue on appeal, it is extremely unlikely that the appellate court would have reversed Gray's extended-term sentence. For these reasons, Gray's attorney's failure to raise an Apprendi issue on appeal did not cause him prejudice.

  5. People v. Wright

    2019 IL App (1st) 161404 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)

    The large disparity in the prosecutor's strikes constitutes prima facie evidence of a pattern of strikes against Blacks and suggests racial motivation for the strikes. See People v. Harris, 129 Ill. 2d 123, 172-73 (1989) (State's use of 15 out of 20 peremptory challenges to exclude Blacks constituted a pattern of strikes against blacks); People v. Champs, 273 Ill. App. 3d 502, 507 (1995) (finding a pattern of strikes where the State used three of its five peremptory challenges against Black veniremembers); United States v. Alvarado, 923 F.2d 253,255 (2d Cir. 1991) (finding a prima facie case when the prosecution struck four out of seven minority jurors).

  6. People v. Fenton

    2015 Ill. App. 130861 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015)

    People v. Davis, 231 Ill. 2d 349, 360 (2008)(citing Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472, 478 (2008) [citations.]). Defendant argues that the racial breakdown of excluded venirepersons—66% African-American and 34% Caucasian—is so disproportionate that it indicates purposeful discrimination. ¶ 33 In support, defendant cites to People v. Champs, 273 Ill App. 3d 502 (1995), in which the court found an inference of purposeful racial discrimination where 60 percent of the excluded jurors where African-American. In Champs, the court reasoned that 60 percent of the excluded jurors being African-American suggested an inference of racial discrimination when the State used peremptory challenges to exclude three out of only four potential African-American jurors.

  7. People v. Jones

    2015 Ill. App. 2d 120717 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015)   Cited 9 times
    Following McLaurin

    A reviewing court should not overturn a trial court's finding on the issue of discriminatory intent in the prosecution's use of peremptory challenges unless it is convinced that the trial court's determination was clearly erroneous. People v. Champs, 273 Ill.App.3d 502, 506, 210 Ill.Dec. 208, 652 N.E.2d 1184 (1995). Because discriminatory intent is a matter of fact and a question of credibility, the trial court's findings are afforded great deference on review.

  8. People v. Wilson

    303 Ill. App. 3d 1035 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999)   Cited 15 times
    In Wilson, the defendant alleged that his attorney's failure to exercise a peremptory challenge constituted a denial of counsel under Cronic. Id. at 1044.

    People v. Hartzol, 222 Ill. App.3d 631, 651, 584 N.E.2d 291, 306 (1991). In evaluating the brutality or heinousness of the defendant's conduct, the trial court must evaluate all the circumstances surrounding the incident ( People v. Champs, 273 Ill. App.3d 502, 510, 652 N.E.2d 1184, 1191 (1995), and each case will rest upon its own facts. People v. Keller, 267 Ill. App.3d 602, 611, 641 N.E.2d 891, 897 (1994).

  9. People v. Willis

    299 Ill. App. 3d 1008 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998)   Cited 5 times
    Upholding extended-term sentence where defendant stood over fallen victim and shot him multiple times

    The State also argues that the trial court did take into account the mitigating factors in sentencing defendant. The State further argues that the record shows that the trial court's description of defendant's shooting of McTizic was correct. As this court stated in People v. Champs, 273 Ill. Ap. 3d 502, 652 N.E.2d 1184 (1995): "An extended term sentence may be imposed if the court finds that the offense was accompanied by exceptionally brutal or heinous behavior indicative of wanton cruelty.

  10. People v. Jackson

    299 Ill. App. 3d 104 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998)   Cited 14 times
    Finding no error where "remarks made by the State regarding a conspiracy were in response to the defense counsel's remarks that the detectives fabricated evidence and lied to defendant" and "the State did not tell the jury that it had to believe that all the State's witnesses were lying in order to acquit defendant"

    In evaluating the brutality or heinousness of the conduct, the trial court must evaluate the entire nature and all the facts surrounding the incident. People v. Champs, 273 Ill. App.3d 502, 510, 652 N.E.2d 1184 (1995); People v. Hartzol, 222 Ill. App.3d 631, 651, 584 N.E.2d 291 (1991). Behavior is heinous if it is hatefully or shockingly evil, grossly bad, or enormously and flagrantly criminal.