ILLINOIS STANDARD OF REVIEW OUTLINE



David Bergschneider
Legal Director
October 1998






          Effective July 1 1997, Supreme Court Rule 341 requires that all briefs filed in Illinois reviewing courts must contain a concise discussion of the applicable standard of review. This outline includes cases defining the standards of review that apply to various types of cases. (Note: Underlined case names refer to briefs filed by attorneys of the Office of the State Appellate Defender.)

I. GENERAL

          A. People v. Coleman, ___Ill.2d ___, ___ N.E.2d ___ (1998) (No. 84162, 10/1/98).

          1. The "manifestly erroneous" standard "represents the typical appellate standard of review for findings of fact made by a trial judge," and is not appropriate where the issue is whether a motion to dismiss, which assumes the truth of all well-pleaded factual allegations, should have been granted.

          2. The "abuse of discretion" standard is the most deferential standard of review available, and is reserved for instances in which the reviewing court has no authority to substitute its judgement (i.e., sentencing decisions) or the trial court occupies a superior position to determine (i.e., credibility of witnesses).

          3. Where legal rather than factual issues are involved, plenary (de novo) review is usually appropriate.

          B. Sufficiency of evidence

          1. To prove guilt at trial - whether evidence, taken most favorably to the prosecution, is such that any rational trier of fact could have found that the elements of the offense were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

          2. To revoke probation - manifestly erroneous - Tipsword (4-97-0466) (Libby).

          B. Constitutionality of statute
         
          1. de novo - Torres (3-96-0595) (Silvern).
         
          2. de novo - Allensworth (3-95-0536) (Meinz).
         
          C. Trial court's interpretation of statute - de novo - Russell v. DNR, ___Ill.2d ___, ___ N.E.2d ___ (1998) (No. 84162, 10/1/98).
         
          D. Summary judgment on issues of law - de novo:
         
          1. Murneigh v. Gainer, 177 Ill.2d 287, 685 N.E.2d 1357 (1997).
         
          2. Feazel v. Washington, 291 Ill. App.3d 766, 684 N.E.2d 1052 (4th Dist. 1997).
         
          E. Sufficiency of Charging Instrument - de novo:
         
          1. People v. $1,124,905 . . . (Mena), 177 Ill.2d 314, 685 N.E.2d 1370 (1997).
          2. People v. McCoy, 295 Ill. App. 3d 988, 692 N.E.2d 1244 (1st Dist. 1998).
         
          F. Whether trial court erred by permitting amendment of charging instrument - abuse of discretion - People v. McCoy, 295 Ill. App. 3d 988, 692 N.E.2d 1244 (1st Dist. 1998).




II. MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS
         
          A. Generally
         
          1. People v. Dilworth, 169 Ill.2d 195, 661 N.E.2d 310 (1996); People v. Krueger, 175 Ill.2d 60, 675 N.E.2d 604 (1996).
         
          a. If factual questions - reversed only if manifestly erroneous.
         
          b. If only legal questions - de novo review applies.
         
          2. People v. Shapiro, 177 Ill.2d 519, 687 N.E.2d 65 (1997).
         
          a. Reasonableness is normally a "mixed" question of law and fact.
         
          b. If there are no factual disputes, de novo review applies.
         
          3. People v. Wright, 294 Ill. App. 3d 606, 691 N.E.2d 94 (1st Dist. 1998) (de
          novo standard applied where, at oral argument, appellate counsel expressly declined to challenge trial court's factual findings).
         
          4. People v. Perez & Diaz, 288 Ill. App.3d 1037, 681N.E.2d 173 (3d Dist. 1997) (see also People v. Greene, 289 Ill.App3d 796, 682 N.E.2d 354 (2d Dist. 1997).
         
          a. Ultimate conclusion as to reasonableness of warrantless search is reviewed de novo (citing Ornelas v. U.S., 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996) & People v. Kidd, 175 Ill.2d 1, 25-26, 675 N.E.2d 910, 922 (1996).
         
          b. Factual determinations (including inferences to be drawn) are subject to reversal only if manifestly erroneous.
         
          B. Determination whether probable cause existed - if no factual issues - de novo - Gorzelanny (96-0469) (Mysza).
         
          C. Validity of consent to search - People v. Sanchez, 292 Ill.App.3d 763, 686 N.E.2d 367 (3d Dist. 1997).
         
          1. Ultimate determination of reasonableness of warrantless search is reviewed de novo.
          2. Trial court's factual findings and reasonable inferences are "entitled to deference."
         
          D. Standing to challenge search - de novo - People v. Bower, 291 Ill. App.3d 1077, 685 N.E.2d 393 (3d Dist. 1997).
         
          E. Reconsideration of denial of motion to suppress - abuse of discretion - People v. Fulton, 289 Ill. App.3d 970, 683 N.E.2d 154(1st Dist. 1997).
          F. Delaware v. Franks issues - failure to hold hearing - de novo - Cabellero (95-3423) (1st) - (Pam O'Shea).
         
          G. Whether statement is sufficiently attenuated from illegal arrest to be admissible - de novo where no dispute as to facts or credibility - People v. Jennings, 296 Ill. App.3d 761, 695 N.E.2d 1303 (1st Dist. 1998).
         
         
         
         
III. INEFFECTIVENESS OF TRIAL LAWYER
         
          A. Raised for first time on appeal - de novo - Davis - (81595 (Ill. S.Ct.)) (Chick Hoffman).
         
          B. Whether defense attorney improperly ignored defendant's wishes concerning substitution of trial judge - de novo - Anderson (2-96-0742) (Weller).
         
         
         
         
IV. GUILTY PLEAS
         
          A. Sufficiency of post - plea admonishments - de novo - Honorable (96-3991) (1st) (Mosby).
         
          B. Whether motion to withdraw plea should be granted:
         
          1. Abuse of discretion exercised in favor of innocence and with preference for trial on the merits - Serna (2-97-0438) (Andrews).
         
          2. Abuse of discretion, but trial court should grant leave to withdraw plea that appears to have been based on a misapprehension of the facts or law, and where defendant has a defense worthy of consideration or the ends of justice would served by a trial - People v. Halawa, 291 Ill. App.3d 373, 683 N.E.2d 926 (1st Dist. 1997).
         
          C. Sufficiency of 604(d) certificate
         
          1. de novo - Cecil (5-97-0272) (Randolph).
         
          2. de novo - Mackins (2-96-1141) (Johnson).
         
         
         
         
V. TRIAL PROCEDURES
         
          A. Motion for joinder of charges or defendants - abuse of discretion - People v. Rodriguez, 289 Ill. App.3d 223, 680 N.E.2d 757 (1st Dist. 1997).
         
          B. Sufficiency of jury waiver - de novo - Matthews (5-96-0554) (Fowler) (whether defendant knowingly waived right to twelve-member jury).
         
          C. Failure to appoint an interpreter - abuse of discretion - Diaz (2-96-1005) (Wiltgen).
          D. Whether trial court erred by refusing to give instruction on theory of defense - de novo - Rollins (5-96-0411) (Evers).
         
          E. Propriety of instructing deadlocked jury to continue deliberating (and giving wrong instruction) - de novo - Cobb (96-4030) (1st) (Jones).
         
          F. Refusal to give "accomplice" instruction - abuse of discretion - People v. Harris, 182 Ill.2d 114, 695 N.E.2d 447 (1998).
         
          G. Whether defendant's constitutional rights were violated where he was called by State as witness at probation revocation hearing - de novo - People v. Bell, 296 Ill.App.3d 146, 694 N.E.2d 673 (4th Dist. 1998).
         
          H. Whether trial court erred by quashing subpoenas under the "special witness" doctrine - abuse of discretion - People v. Paris, 295 Ill. App.3d 372, 692 N.E.2d 848 (4th Dist. 1998) (Note: Under the "special witness" doctrine, a defendant may obtain the testimony of prosecutors, judges, criminal defense attorneys and reporters only after making a plausible showing that the anticipated evidence is material and favorable to the defense.)
         
         
         
         
VI. EVIDENCE
         
          A. Where issue is one of law - de novo - People v. Saunders, 288 Ill. App.3d 523, 680 N.E.2d 790 (4th Dist. 1997) (whether statutory exception to spousal privilege applies).
         
          B. Whether State established foundation to admit physical evidence - de novo - Jackson (5-96-0243) (Wells).
         
          C. Whether defendant was improperly denied opportunity to present evidence relevant to entrapment - McCutcheon - (2-96-0608) (Wiltgen)
         
          D. Admissibility of other crimes evidence - abuse of discretion - Cobb (96-4030) (1st)) (Jones).
         
          E. Admission of rebuttal evidence - abuse of discretion - Clay (96-4238) (1st) (Eken).
         
          F. Whether "Business Record" exception applied - abuse of discretion - In re N.W., 293 Ill. App.3d 794, 688 N.E.2d 855 (1st Dist. 1997).
         
          G. Whether non-expert was improperly allowed to give expert opinion - abuse of discretion - Perry (3-96-0813) (Carusona).
         
          H. Whether it was error to admit evidence of the effect of crimes on the complainant - Spruille (2-96-1078) (Glaser).
         
          I. Whether hearsay was improperly admitted under 725 ILCS 5/115-10 - abuse of discretion - People v. Bowen, ___ Ill.2d ___, ___ N.E.2d ___ (1998) (No. 83687, 8/6/98).
         
          J. Whether declaration against penal interest was improperly excluded under Chambers v. Mississippi - abuse of discretion - People v. Anderson, 291 Ill. App.3d 843, 684 N.E.2d 845 (1st Dist. 1997).
         
         
VII. SENTENCING
         
          A. Consideration of improper factor - de novo
         
          1. Smith (2-96-0615) (Rogers).
         
          2. Lewis (4-96-1009) (Peterson).
         
          3. Serrano (1-95-4246) (Foley).
         
          B. Consideration of factors inherent in the offense
         
          1. de novo - Killen (2-96-0771) (DeWitt).
         
          2. Abuse of discretion - Moore (4-96-0988 ) (Schuster).
         
          C. Sentence Credit - de novo
         
          1. Leeds (4-96-0976) (Ryan).
         
          2. Benavides (2-96-0653) (DeWitt).
         
          D. Whether sentence imposed was authorized - de novo - Brown (2-96-0665) (Hildebrand).
         
          E. Whether restitution order was invalid because recipient was not a "victim" under the statute - de novo - Tate (5-96-0828) (Fowler).
         
          F. Whether trial court made sufficient finding of defendant's criminal history to impose felony sentence without a presentence report - de novo - Moore - (5-96-0471) (Zalisko).
         
          G. Whether sentences were part of a single course of conduct for consecutive sentencing purposes - trial court's determination must be upheld if there is any evidence to support it - People v. Syverson, 293 Ill. App. 3d 199, 687 N.E.2d 528 (3rd Dist. 1997).
         
          H. Whether minor should be sentenced as adult - abuse of discretion - People v. Luckett, 295 Ill. App.3d 342, 692 N.E.2d 1345 (3d Dist. 1998).
         
         
         
         
VIII. MISCELLANEOUS
         
          A. Application of corpus delicti rule to undisputed facts - de novo - Montgomery (95-4427) (1st) (Foley).
         
          B. Whether one act - one crime rule violated - de novo - Lewis (96-2611) (1st) (Geis).
         
          C. Fitness to stand trial
         
          1. Whether there was bona fide doubt of fitness
         
          a. Abuse of discretion - Gibson (4-97-0054) (Ryan).
         
          b. de novo - Hastings (3-96-0731) (Burke) (no factual or credibility issues).
         
          2. Whether hearing was required for defendant on psychotropic medication - de novo - Cooksey (2-96-0982) (Rogers).
         
          3. Whether trial court erred by finding defendant fit - abuse of discretion - Durbin (4-97-0010) (Munoz).
         
          D. Post - conviction proceedings
         
          1. Whether trial court erred by dismissing petition without evidentiary hearing - de novo - People v. Coleman, ___Ill.2d ___, ___ N.E.2d ___ (1998) (No. 84162, 10/1/98).
         
          2. Trial court's finding whether late filing was due to defendant's culpable negligence - de novo - People v. Perry, 293 Ill. App.3d 113, 687 N.E.2d 1095 (1st Dist. 1997).
         
          3. Trial court's decision to forego an evidentiary hearing on the petition and to grant relief based solely on the petition and pleadings - manifest error - People v. Hawkins et al., 181 Ill.2d 41, 690 N.E.2d 999 (1998).
         
          E. Sexually Dangerous Persons Proceedings
         
          1. Constitutionality of statutes - de novo - Allensworth (3-95-0536) (Meinz).
         
          2. Statutory construction - de novo - Allensworth (3-95-0536) (Meinz).
         
          F. Denial of motion to expunge records - abuse of discretion - People v. Wells, 294 Ill. App.3d 405, 690 N.E.2d 645 (1st Dist. 1998).
         
          G. Denial of motion to appoint special prosecutor - abuse of discretion - People v. Morley, 287 Ill. App.3d 499, 678 N.E.2d 1235 (2d Dist. 1997).