Appellate Court of Illinois· 6/30/2003

People v. Young

Citations

792 N.E.2d 468
341 Ill. App. 3d 379
275 Ill. Dec. 237
2003 Ill. App. LEXIS 860

How courts have described this case

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

finding that another attorney’s hindsight is not sufficient to show deficient performance
finding a defendant who had been convicted and sentenced did not require Rule 401(a) admonishments
finding further inquiry into the factual basis of defendant’s pro se ineffective-assistance claims was unnecessary where the claims related to trial matters and the judge hearing the posttrial motion had presided over the trial
finding further inquiry into the factual basis of defendant's pro se ineffective- assistance claims was unnecessary where the claims related to trial matters and the judge hearing the posttrial motion had presided over the trial
Rule 401(a) admonitions were not required where the defendant appeared pro se on a posttrial motion, because he had already been convicted and sentenced and “already knew everything a Rule 401(a) admonishment would have told him”
court is not required to give Rule 401 admonishments to postconviction petitioners

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cook, Appleton

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

19 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

20 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.