The Twelfth District reversed a murder sentence that included ‘lifetime parole supervision,’ holding that no Ohio statute authorizes a trial court to impose such a condition and clarifying the distinction between imposing parole terms and notifying defendants of parole eligibility.
The Twelfth District reversed the trial court’s denial of a noncitizen defendant’s motion to withdraw his no-contest plea, holding that the court was required to apply the Strickland two-prong test when the motion was premised on counsel’s failure to advise of immigration consequences under Padilla v. Kentucky.
The First District rejects an ineffective assistance claim on remand from the Supreme Court, finding no prejudice where the uncalled alibi witness’s testimony would have contradicted the existing alibi.
The First District revives a tortious interference claim by a disadvantaged business enterprise against a prime contractor that allegedly misrepresented the DBE’s qualifications to secure a waiver of state procurement DBE goals.
The First District affirms dismissal of a collateral attack on 2007 administrative paternity and support orders, holding the petitioner failed to prove the Department lacked jurisdiction.
The First District holds that an Illinois court retains jurisdiction to modify child support under UIFSA even after all parties and children have left the state, absent consent to another forum.
The First District holds that a circuit court must grant a certificate of innocence when a petitioner has obtained postconviction relief on an actual-innocence claim and the State has dismissed all charges.
The Fifth District affirms that a proffer meeting constituted a plea discussion under Rule 402, limiting the State’s use of the defendant’s statement to impeachment only if he testifies inconsistently.
The Second District affirms a 14-year UPWF sentence after a shooting, rejecting the necessity defense where the defendant advanced toward the victim and refusing to disturb the within-range sentence.
The First District affirms in a UIM dispute, holding that a plaintiff must pay deposition fees for a physician retained by the insurer for claims evaluation but not intended as a trial witness.