People v. Guillen

7 Citing cases

  1. People v. Gaines

    2019 Ill. App. 3d 160494 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)   Cited 1 times

    The double jeopardy clauses under both the Unites States Constitution and the Illinois Constitution establish a core constitutional principle, grounded in fairness and finality, that a defendant must not be subject to multiple prosecutions and punishments for a single offense and " ‘ "thereby subject[ed] * * * to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compell[ed] * * * to live in a continu[ed] state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty." ’ " People v. Guillen , 2014 IL App (2d) 131216, ¶ 22, 387 Ill.Dec. 710, 23 N.E.3d 402 (quoting United States v. Wilson , 420 U.S. 332, 343, 95 S.Ct. 1013, 43 L.Ed.2d 232 (1975) ). The protections under the double jeopardy clause are so essential that our legislature codified the constitutional double jeopardy rules in section 3-4(a) of the Code.

  2. People v. Gaines

    2020 IL 125165 (Ill. 2020)   Cited 18 times

    We further observe that this rule conforms with the established understanding of when jeopardy attaches in the bench or jury trial contexts—which occurs well before sentencing. See Jackson, 118 Ill. 2d at 188; People v. Guillen, 2014 IL App (2d) 131216, ¶ 32; see also, e.g., Peiffer v. State, 88 S.W.3d 439, 445 (Mo. 2002) (en banc) ("sentencing has never been a prerequisite to the attachment of jeopardy"). The plain text of section 3-4(a) also makes no mention of the entry of a finding of guilt or sentencing.

  3. People v. Mitchell

    2017 Ill. App. 2d 160400 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)

    Our supreme court has instructed that we may address the merits of an appeal in the absence of an appellee's brief if " 'the record is simple and the claimed errors are such that the court can easily decide them without the aid of an appellee's brief.' " People v. Guillen, 2014 IL App (2d) 131216, ¶ 20 (quoting First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp., 63 Ill. 2d 128, 133 (1976)). Here, the focus is on whether Johnson had a reasonable, articulable suspicion of DUI such that he was justified in asking defendant to perform field sobriety tests.

  4. People v. Sandoval

    2023 Ill. App. 2d 220155 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    "Under First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp., 63 Ill.2d 128, 133 (1976), we may consider the merits of an appeal despite the absence of an appellee's brief if 'the record is simple and the claimed errors are such that the court can easily decide them without the aid of an appellee's brief.'" People v. Guillen, 2014 IL App (2d) 131216, ¶ 20.

  5. Century 21 McMullen Real Estate, Inc. v. Diamond Elec. Contracting, Inc.

    2017 Ill. App. 161212 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)

    Therefore, under Talandis, we may consider the merits of an appeal despite the absence of an appellee's brief since " 'the record is simple and the claimed errors are such that the court can easily decide them without the aid of an appellee's brief.' " People v. Guillen, 2014 IL App (2d) 131216, ¶ 20 (quoting Talandis, 63 Ill. 2d at 133). ¶ 25 II. Arbitration Clause

  6. MB Fin. Bank, N.A. v. Royal Tee, LLC

    2017 Ill. App. 2d 170006 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)

    therefore believe that the second approach is also inappropriate here. See People v. Guillen, 2014 IL App (2d) 131216, ¶¶ 57, 63 (Zenoff, J., specially concurring) (most issues of first impression are not easily decided and should not be definitively resolved in a Talandis situation). Accordingly, we will proceed under the third approach and will examine the case for prima facie reversible error.

  7. Ketchens v. Smith (In re Estate of Chain)

    2016 Ill. App. 151233 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016)

    With no briefing—let alone adversarial briefing—we are hesitant to decide an issue that could have a significant impact on the outcome of Chain's estate and the ownership of Ketchens's place of residence. See People v. Guillen, 2014 IL App (2d) 131216, ¶ 63 (Zenoff, J., concurring) ("[W]ithout [an] issue's adversarial development, the court is all the more likely to abandon its neutral role, to resolve the issue erroneously, or both.").¶ 35 Finally, it is important that we respect the trial court's role as the initial arbiter of these issues.