People v. Watson

9 Citing cases

  1. People v. Harris

    357 Ill. App. 3d 330 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005)   Cited 6 times
    Affirming the dismissal of the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance where the commutation of his sentence rendered the issue moot

    On appeal, defendant challenges this finding. Though he recognizes that this court's decision in People v. Watson, 347 Ill. App. 3d 181, 807 N.E.2d 628 (2004), appeal denied, 211 Ill. 2d 611 (2004), is directly on point, he argues that Watson was wrongly decided. Relying on Madej v. Briley, 371 F.3d 898 (7th Cir. 2004), he contends that the Constitution mandates that he be afforded a "full remedy" for his trial counsel's ineffectiveness.

  2. People v. Mata

    353 Ill. App. 3d 784 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004)   Cited 6 times

    It is well settled in Illinois that any and all issues raised concerning a defendant's commuted death sentence are moot. People v. Evans, 209 Ill. 2d 194, 208 (2004); People v. Rissley, 206 Ill. 2d 403, 463 (2003); People v. Watson, 347 Ill. App. 3d 181, 186-87 (2004). The Governor's power to pardon flows from both the United States and Illinois Constitutions.

  3. People v. Mata

    217 Ill. 2d 535 (Ill. 2005)   Cited 51 times
    Recognizing that a reviewing court may take judicial notice of public records

    Thus, her claim is not moot. The State has relied heavily on People v. Watson, 347 Ill. App. 3d 181 (2004), in arguing defendant's claim is moot. Watson is factually similar to this case.

  4. Evans v. City of Chicago

    231 F.R.D. 302 (N.D. Ill. 2005)   Cited 46 times
    Holding that communications between governor and governor's counsel reflecting political advice, not legal advice, were not privileged

    Indeed, it is hard for us to imagine that documents relating to the decision to pardon Mr. Evans were prepared " because of the prospect of litigation" involving the PRB or the Governor when Illinois law renders a pardon decision unreviewable. People ex. rel. Madigan v. Snyder, 208 Ill.2d 457, 281 Ill.Dec. 581, 804 N.E.2d 546, 560 (2004); People v. Watson, 347 Ill.App.3d 181, 283 Ill.Dec. 23, 807 N.E.2d 628, 633 (2004).           Moreover, even if the documents were prepared in anticipation of litigation involving the PRB or the Governor, the work-product doctrine would not apply here.

  5. People v. Watson

    2013 Ill. App. 111768 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013)   Cited 1 times

    In 2003, while defendant's direct appeal was pending before the Illinois Supreme Court, his death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment by then-Governor George Ryan. The supreme court transferred defendant's appeal to this court, which dismissed the appeal after finding his challenge to his eligibility for the death penalty to be moot. People v. Watson, 347 Ill. App. 3d 181, 192 (2004), overruled in People v. Mata, 217 Ill. 2d 535, 549 (2005) (defendant's claim regarding lack of proof of aggravating sentencing factor was not moot). ¶ 5 Also while defendant's direct appeal was pending in 2003, he filed a pro se petition for relief under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (the Act) (725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq. (West 2002)). In that petition, defendant raised various claims of violations of due process and the ineffectiveness of his trial counsel.

  6. People v. Munson

    2024 Ill. App. 221193 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024)

    ¶ 24 In support of its argument that petitioner's claim is moot, the State relies on People v.Harris, 357 Ill.App.3d 330, 333 (2005), a pre-Mata case that draws significant support from People v. Watson, 347 Ill.App.3d 181 (2004), which our supreme court overruled in Mata, 217 Ill.2d at 549. Accordingly, we do not follow Harris.

  7. People v. Watson

    2019 Ill. App. 133979 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)

    We ruled that defendant's challenge to his death sentence was moot, but stated that, had we considered his argument, we would have found the evidence sufficient to qualify him for the death penalty. People v. Watson, 347 Ill. App. 3d 181, 182, 192-93 (2004). Defendant filed a petition for leave to appeal to our supreme court, which was denied in October 2004.

  8. People v. King

    2017 Ill. App. 122172 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)

    See Harris, 357 Ill. App. 3d 330 (affirming the dismissal of the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance where the commutation of his sentence rendered the issue moot). ¶ 104 In sum, there exists clear precedent in this state that an executively imposed sentence is not subject to review by the judiciary, out of deference to the enumerated authority granted to the governor in the Illinois Constitution. As the court noted in People v. Watson, 347 Ill. App. 3d 181, 187 (2004), "[i]t would be a curious logic to allow a convicted person who petitions for mercy to retain the full benefit of a lesser punishment with conditions, yet escape burdens readily assumed in accepting the commutation which he sought." Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not err in dismissing the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance as moot. ¶ 105 We note that our decision in no way bars the defendant from seeking his desired remedy elsewhere, namely re-petitioning the executive for a full pardon, a subsequent commutation to a set number of years, or an allowance of the chance for parole.

  9. People v. Harris

    2013 Ill. App. 120498 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013)   Cited 4 times

    The circuit court then, on motion of the State, dismissed defendant's postconviction petitions on the grounds that the Governor's act of commutation rendered moot defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. This court similarly dismissed defendant's appeal, citing People v. Watson, 347 Ill.App.3d 181, 283 Ill.Dec. 23, 807 N.E.2d 628 (2004), and the numerous other cases which had found that any and all sentencing issues raised by a commuted defendant are rendered moot by the Governor's act of commutation. People v. Harris, 357 Ill.App.3d 330, 332–34, 293 Ill.Dec. 719, 828 N.E.2d 1217 (2005).