People v. McNulty

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding the defendant’s argument that the trial court erred by failing to advise him that he was eligible for a TASC evaluation was not subject to plain error review on the basis that it affected a substantial right
• “When the issues involved in the trial court no longer exist due to intervening events that have rendered it impossible for the appellate court to grant effectual relief to defendant, the case is moot.”
• “A sentencing challenge is moot where defendant has completed serving his sentence.”
• a sentencing challenge is moot if the sentence is fully served

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• People v. Miller
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2014-06-17· cited 41×
• People v. Shelton
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2010-05-14· cited 34×
• People v. Kitch
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2009-06-25· cited 12×
• People v. Hall
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2014-12-12· cited 9×
• People v. Funches
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2019-08-12· cited 6×

Cites

10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• People v. Keene
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1995-11-02· cited 416×
• People v. Reed
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1997-09-25· cited 354×
• People v. Campbell
  Illinois Supreme Court· 2007-01-22· cited 156×
• People v. Roberson
  Illinois Supreme Court· 2004-10-28· cited 77×
• People v. Casillas
  Illinois Supreme Court· 2000-11-16· cited 56×
• People v. Wallace
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2002-06-07· cited 42×
• People v. Brown
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1994-10-12· cited 30×
• People v. Hamilton
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1987-05-05· cited 16×
• People v. Whitney
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2006-11-07· cited 5×
• People v. Porm
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 2006-05-18· cited 4×