People v. McCreary

21 Citing cases

  1. People v. McGhee

    2020 Ill. App. 2d 170892 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020)

    Unpreserved errors may be considered under the plain-error doctrine when (1) a clear or obvious error occurred and the evidence is closely balanced, or (2) a clear or obvious error occurred and that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant's trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence. People v. McCreary, 393 Ill. App. 3d 402, 406 (2009). We first determine whether error occurred.

  2. People v. McKinney

    399 Ill. App. 3d 77 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010)   Cited 43 times
    Finding that the reviewing court can take judicial notice of the Illinois Department of Corrections' website

    Because, in deciding whether the plain-error rule applies, we must consider the substance of defendant's argument to determine whether error occurred at all, we address the merits of defendant's claim. See People v. McCreary, 393 Ill. App. 3d 402, 406 (2009). The issue raised in this appeal is whether a defendant convicted of a Class 2 felony, yet sentenced as a Class X offender because of his criminal history, should receive the MSR term imposed for Class X felonies or that applicable to Class 2 felonies.

  3. People v. Kelley

    2018 Ill. App. 5th 150309 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)

    We accept the State's concession. Defendant was in custody from August 31, 2014, the date of his arrest, through sentencing on June 24, 2015, a total of 297 days. Defendant is entitled to a credit of $69.75 toward his imposed fines. ¶ 26 Accordingly, we modify the mittimus to reflect a $69.75 credit toward defendant's fines. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 615(b)(1) (eff. Jan. 1, 1967); People v. McCreary, 393 Ill. App. 3d 402, 409 (2009). ¶ 27 For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment as modified to reflect a $69.75 credit for time served.

  4. People v. Rogers

    2018 Ill. App. 4th 160280 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)

    When only the minimum amount of a fine is specified in a statute, "constitutional limitations determine the maximum amount." People v. Coleman, 391 Ill. App. 3d 963, 978, 909 N.E.2d 952, 966 (2009) (stating that, on its face, section 5-9-1.1(a) authorized the imposition of a $1 million fine where evidence showed the street value of the drugs at issue in the case was $92,600); see also People v. McCreary, 393 Ill. App. 3d 402, 408, 915 N.E.2d 745, 749 (2009) (finding that although the evidence showed the street value of the drugs at issue was $634.95, the "imposition of a [$1500] street-value fine was proper, as it was more than the value of the drugs seized"). In this instance, there is no dispute that the trial court imposed "not less than the full street value" of the heroin at issue as required by the statute.

  5. People v. Conley

    2017 Ill. App. 4th 150087 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)

    We modify the sentencing judgment so as to allow defendant this credit of $15. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 615(b)(1) (eff. Jan. 1, 1967); People v. McCreary, 393 Ill. App. 3d 402, 409 (2009).¶ 79 III. CONCLUSION

  6. People v. Beman

    2016 Ill. App. 2d 140679 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016)

    Because the resolution of that issue does not require us to defer to the court's reasoning, our review is de novo. See People v. McCreary, 393 Ill. App. 3d 402, 406 (2009). ¶ 13 Due process mandates that a defendant be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of a crime before he is punished. People v. Virella, 256 Ill. App. 3d 635, 638 (1993).

  7. People v. Armstrong

    2016 Ill. App. 2d 140358 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016)   Cited 4 times

    ¶ 10 We first note that, as defendant presumes, the forfeiture provision of Rule 604(d) does not foreclose a claim of plain error under Rule 615(a). See People v. Fuller, 205 Ill.2d 308, 322–23, 275 Ill.Dec. 755, 793 N.E.2d 526 (2002) ; People v. McCreary, 393 Ill.App.3d 402, 405–06, 333 Ill.Dec. 674, 915 N.E.2d 745 (2009).¶ 11 Here, defendant contends that his trial attorney's deficient representation induced him to plead guilty to an offense of which he would necessarily have been acquitted after a trial.

  8. People v. Moss

    2015 Ill. App. 5th 130256 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015)

    We accordingly modify the mittimus to reflect a $2,805 credit toward the defendant's fines. See People v. McCreary, 393 Ill. App. 3d 402, 409 (2009).¶ 39 CONCLUSION

  9. People v. Armstrong

    2016 Ill. App. 2d 140358 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015)

    Defendant acknowledges the rule but requests that we review his claim for plain error under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 615(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 1967). For the following reasons, we elect to do so. ¶ 10 We first note that, as defendant presumes, the forfeiture provision of Rule 604(d) does not foreclose a claim of plain error under Rule 615(a). See People v. Fuller, 205 Ill. 2d 308, 322-23 (2002); People v. McCreary, 393 Ill. App. 3d 402, 405-06 (2009). 6 ¶ 11 Here, defendant contends that his trial attorney's deficient representation induced him to plead guilty to an offense of which he would necessarily have been acquitted after a trial.

  10. People v. Marcum

    2015 Ill. App. 5th 130092 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015)

    We accordingly modify the mittimus to reflect a $265 credit toward the defendant's fines. See People v. McCreary, 393 Ill. App. 3d 402, 409 (2009).¶ 35 CONCLUSION