People v. Hampton

5 Citing cases

  1. People v. Bell

    2018 Ill. App. 4th 151016 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)   Cited 49 times
    In Bell, the defendant was convicted of multiple counts of unlawful delivery of a controlled substance and unlawful possession of a controlled substance.

    ¶ 28 It has long been held a defendant has no authority to file pro se motions when he or she is represented by counsel. See People v. Handy , 278 Ill. App. 3d 829, 836, 216 Ill.Dec. 114, 664 N.E.2d 1042, 1046 (1996) ; People v. Neal , 286 Ill. App. 3d 353, 355, 221 Ill.Dec. 223, 675 N.E.2d 130, 131 (1996) ; People v. James , 362 Ill. App. 3d 1202, 1205, 299 Ill.Dec. 377, 841 N.E.2d 1109, 1113 (2006) ; People v. Hampton , 2011 IL App (4th) 100219, ¶¶ 11–13, 355 Ill.Dec. 425, 959 N.E.2d 1158. "A defendant has the right to proceed either pro se or through counsel; he has no right to some sort of hybrid representation whereby he would receive the services of counsel and still be permitted to file pro se motions." People v. Stevenson , 2011 IL App (1st) 093413, ¶ 30, 355 Ill.Dec. 857, 960 N.E.2d 739.

  2. People v. Palmer

    2014 Ill. App. 4th 130221 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014)   Cited 1 times

    However, the court should not have done so as defendant was represented by counsel and thus, his pro se motions—both to reduce his sentence and, later, to withdraw both his and his attorney's motions to reduce sentence—were not properly before the court. See People v. Hampton, 2011 IL App (4th) 100219, ¶11, 959 N.E.2d 1158 (concluding a defendant's pro se "motion to re-coupe [sic] personal funds" was not properly before the trial court because the defendant was represented by trial counsel throughout the court proceedings); see also People v. Handy, 278 Ill. App. 3d 829, 836, 664 N.E.2d 1042, 1046 (1996) (concluding the trial court correctly ignored the defendant's pro se motion for reduction of sentence, as the defendant was represented by counsel and thus his motion was not properly before the court). Accordingly, we treat the court's January 7, 2013, ruling as a nullity, meaning that until February 22, 2013, defense counsel's motion to reconsider sentence remained pending in the trial court.

  3. People v. Hampton

    2014 Ill. App. 4th 120527 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014)   Cited 3 times

    Following the court's denial of his motion to reconsider sentence, defendant appealed. On direct appeal, this court denied the office of the State Appellate Defender's (OSAD's) motion for summary remand (People v. Hampton, 2011 IL App (4th) 100219, ¶ 17, 959 N.E.2d 1158), and, on the merits, affirmed in part as modified, vacated in part, and remanded with directions. People v. Hampton, 2012 IL App (4th) 100219-U, ¶ 49.

  4. People v. Hampton

    2022 Ill. App. 4th 210522 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022)

    ¶ 4 This court has set forth the underlying facts of this case several times. See Peoplev. Hampton, 2022 IL App (4th) 200606-U; People v. Hampton, 2018 IL App (4th) 160133-U; People v. Hampton, 2016 IL App (4th) 140489-U; People v. Hampton, 2014 IL App (4th) 120527-U; People v. Hampton, 2012 IL App (4th) 100219-U; People v. Hampton, 2011 IL App (4th) 100219, 959 N.E.2d 1158. Accordingly, we will set forth only those facts necessary to resolve the issues presented in this case.

  5. People v. Larosa

    2021 Ill. App. 3d 190288 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021)

    See 725 ILCS 5/114-5(a) (West 2016). While a defendant generally has no authority to file pro se motions when he is represented by counsel, see People v. Hampton, 2011 IL App (4th) 100219, ¶ 11, the motion to substitute is an absolute right of the defendant. People v. Gold-Smith, 2019 IL App (3d) 160665, ¶ 29.