People v. Mendez

38 Citing cases

  1. People v. Jeter

    247 Ill. App. 3d 120 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993)   Cited 16 times
    In People v. Jeter (1993), 247 Ill. App.3d 120, we considered the same comments quoted above and determined that the trial court had abused its discretion in basing sentencing upon its personal beliefs about the state of the prison system.

    Despite the large number of reported cases which discuss this problem, these instructions continue to be used by our trial courts. (See, e.g., People v. Jones (1979), 81 Ill.2d 1; People v. Harris (1978), 72 Ill.2d 16; People v. Trinkle (1977), 68 Ill.2d 198; People v. Carvajal (1993), 241 Ill. App.3d 886; People v. Mendez (1991), 221 Ill. App.3d 868; People v. Deason (1991), 223 Ill. App.3d 320; People v. Velasco (1989), 184 Ill. App.3d 618; People v. Fields (1988), 170 Ill. App.3d 1; People v. Page (1987), 163 Ill. App.3d 959; People v. Lincoln (1987), 157 Ill. App.3d 700; People v. Cloyd (1987), 152 Ill. App.3d 50; People v. Jaffe (1986), 145 Ill. App.3d 840; People v. Kraft (1985), 133 Ill. App.3d 294; People v. Smith (1984), 127 Ill. App.3d 622; People v. McDaniel (1984), 125 Ill. App.3d 694.) Where a defendant's intent to kill is not at issue or is blatantly evident, however, such instructions, though error, have been held to be harmless.

  2. People v. Clifton

    342 Ill. App. 3d 696 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003)   Cited 7 times

    Thus the Jackson court stressed the pragmatic necessity for accessing a number of different sources, as well as the gang specialist's superior capability (compared to that of the layperson) in accessing those sources. Similarly, in People v. Mendez, 221 Ill. App. 3d 868, 871, 582 N.E.2d 1265, 1267 (1991), a Chicago police gang crimes specialist testified that two rival gangs existed in the area where a shooting took place and that the petitioner was a member of one of them. The court held that the testimony was properly admitted.

  3. People v. Clifton

    321 Ill. App. 3d 707 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000)   Cited 12 times

    Thus the Jackson court stressed the pragmatic necessity for accessing a number of different sources, as well as the gang specialist's superior capability (compared to that of the layperson) in accessing those sources.        Similarly, in People v. Mendez, 221 Ill.App.3d 868, 871, 582 N.E.2d 1265, 1267 (1991), a Chicago police gang crimes specialist testified that two rival gangs existed in the area where a shooting took place [321 Ill.App.3d 721] and that the petitioner was a member of one of them. The court held that the testimony was properly admitted.

  4. People v. Loera

    250 Ill. App. 3d 31 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993)   Cited 11 times

    That defendant possessed the specific intent to kill is evident from the fact that he fired an automatic or semiautomatic weapon into a crowd of rival gang members with whom defendant's gang was at "war." The cases of People v. Mendez (1991), 221 Ill. App.3d 868, and People v. Smith (1984), 127 Ill. App.3d 622, buttress our determination. In Mendez, similar attempt (murder) instructions were given and the court found the error to be harmless since the evidence of the defendant's intent to kill was clear.

  5. People v. Carvajal

    241 Ill. App. 3d 886 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993)   Cited 8 times

    Moreover, that defendants possessed the specific intent to kill is evident from the fact that they fired automatic and semiautomatic weapons into a crowd of rival gang members with whom defendants' gang was at "war." Our conclusion is supported by cases such as People v. Mendez (1991), 221 Ill. App.3d 868, and People v. Smith (1984), 127 Ill. App.3d 622. In Mendez, similar attempt (murder) instructions were given and the court found the error to be harmless since the evidence of the defendant's intent to kill was clear.

  6. People v. Silva

    231 Ill. App. 3d 127 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992)   Cited 6 times

    Smith, 141 Ill.2d at 58, 565 N.E.2d at 907. See also People v. Gonzalez (1991), 142 Ill.2d 481, 489, 568 N.E.2d 864, 867 ("[G]ang-related evidence will not necessarily be excluded if it is otherwise relevant and admissible"); People v. Williams (1992), 228 Ill. App.3d 981, 989-90 (gang-related evidence admissible to demonstrate motive); People v. Mendez (1991), 221 Ill. App.3d 868, 875, 582 N.E.2d 1265, 1270-71, appeal denied (1992), 143 Ill.2d 644, 587 N.E.2d 1021. In Smith, the court found that no evidence supported the State's theory that the crime was gang-related, so the only purpose in admitting evidence of a gang connection was an impermissible one — to inflame the jury's passion or arouse its prejudice against the defendant.

  7. Thomas v. State

    625 So. 2d 1149 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992)   Cited 9 times
    In Thomas, the purported purpose of introducing the evidence did not tend to establish intent, motive, or identity, or come within any other proper exception to the general exclusionary rule.

    There appears to be a close relation between gang affiliation and drive-by shootings. See United States v. Sweeting, 933 F.2d 962 (11th Cir. 1991); N.D.T. v. State, 592 So.2d 647 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991); Matter of Jose T., 282 Cal.Rptr. 75, 230 Cal.App.3d 1455 (1991); In re Sergio R., 279 Cal.Rptr. 149, 228 Cal.App.3d 588 (1991); Thai v. Stang, 263 Cal.Rptr. 202, 214 Cal.App.3d 1264 (1989); People v. Rosales, 237 Cal.Rptr. 558, 192 Cal.App.3d 759 (1987); People v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 186 Cal.Rptr. 734, 137 Cal.App.3d 90 (1982); Haynes v. State, 199 Ga. App. 288, 404 S.E.2d 585 (1991); People v. Mendez, 221 Ill. App.3d 868, 164 Ill.Dec. 321, 582 N.E.2d 1265 (1991), appeal denied, 143 Ill.2d 644, 167 Ill.Dec. 406, 587 N.E.2d 1021 (1992); State v. Stone, 104 Or. App. 534, 802 P.2d 668 (1990); State v. Sims, 105 Or. App. 318, 804 P.2d 1205, review denied, 311 Or. 433, 812 P.2d 828 (1991); State ex rel. Juvenile Department of Multnomah County v. Holloway, 102 Or. App. 553, 795 P.2d 589 (1990); State v. Thierry, 60 Wn. App. 445, 803 P.2d 844 (1991). We vigorously reject the prosecutor's contention that the appellant's gang membership was admissible to show where and how he learned to commit murder.

  8. People v. Morris

    229 Ill. App. 3d 144 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992)   Cited 43 times
    Affirming the circuit court's judgment

    To prevail on a claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to quash and suppress, the defendant must show that the motion would have been granted and that the trial outcome would have been different if the evidence had been suppressed. People v. Bennett (1991), 222 Ill. App.3d 188, 201, 582 N.E.2d 1370; People v. Mendez (1991), 221 Ill. App.3d 868, 873, 582 N.E.2d 1265. Defendant contends that his attorney exercised such poor judgment on this point that it should be held ineffective assistance of counsel, since the question of whether defendant was arrested without probable cause was a close one that should have been submitted for the trial court's factual resolution.

  9. Ware v. McAdory

    No. 96 C 5123 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 9, 2003)   Cited 2 times

    The state court does expressly refer to the principles of res judicata and waiver, but never explicitly applies either procedural bar to the facts of Ware's petition. Instead, the state court concludes that Ware's claims were insufficient to warrant further proceedings, citing People v. Mendez, 221 Ill. App.3d 868, 872-73, 582 N.E.2d 1265 (1991) (engaging in a Strickland analysis). The adequate and independent state grounds doctrine does not bar habeas review unless the state court actually relied on the procedural bar as an independent basis for its decision.

  10. U.S. ex Rel. Cooks v. Cowan

    158 F. Supp. 2d 884 (N.D. Ill. 2001)   Cited 1 times

    Moreover, the petition does not set forth the gist of a constitutional claim. See People v, Mendez, 221 Ill. App.3d 868, 873 (1991). Therefore, there are no appealable issues in the case.