david ray mccoy sheila daniels chicago

Defendant maintains that his trial counsel made "outlandish" arguments to the effect that defendant could not have killed McCoy because Sheila's gunshot had already killed him. Defendant has cited no authority in support of this claim and it is therefore waived. Therefore, based upon the facts before us, we find that Judge Urso did not err in refusing to grant defendant a second hearing on her motion to suppress based upon new evidence. As for defendant's claim that there was new evidence upon which to reopen the motion to suppress statements, again, we disagree. She asked to call Vrdolyak during the polygraph exam. Defendant was not hit or struck or in any manner mistreated during his interrogation. A South Side woman has been convicted for the second time of killing millionaire David Ray McCoy, her live-in boyfriend, in 1988. 767, 650 N.E.2d 224. of first-degree murder against Sheila Daniels, 41, late Monday . In People v. Hinton, 302 Ill.App.3d 614, 236 Ill.Dec. at 1527, 128 L.Ed.2d at 296. In her motion, defendant asserted that she had been illegally arrested in her home without a warrant in the absence of probable cause, which was a violation of her fourth amendment rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Defendant then asked to see his sister, who was brought into the room. Considering the facts of the instant case, we simply cannot say that the State has meet its burden to show that the evidence was so overwhelming that the crime was accompanied by exceptionally brutal or heinous behavior indicative of wanton cruelty so that we have no doubt that a jury would have made this finding. Post author: Post published: July 1, 2022; Post category: crawford funeral home obituary; Post comments: . A subpoena is a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses or documentary evidence in all criminal prosecutions and is guaranteed by the sixth amendment. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm defendant's conviction, vacate her sentence and remand for resentencing. This court reversed, holding [s]ince the State did not raise the attenuation and independent basis issues at the hearing on the motion to suppress, the State cannot raise them after the order to suppress is final and has been affirmed on appeal. Lawson, 327 Ill.App.3d at 65, 261 Ill.Dec. Home > Blog > Uncategorized > david ray mccoy obituary chicago. Constitutionality of extended term sentence. However, the issue is whether a proper foundation was laid for admission of them into evidence. Her time was divided between her father and her mother and grandmother and thus . Thus, we cannot say that the trial court's granting of the City's motion to quash the subpoenas was in error. Anthony was questioned and released. Da Brat was born on April 14, 1974, as Shawntae Harris in Joliet, Illinois and was raised on the West Side of Chicago, Illinois. HARTMAN, P.J., and SCARIANO, J. 604], 645 N.E.2d 856, 864 (1994). Consequently, we affirm our prior order vacating defendant's extended-term sentence and remanding this case to the trial court for resentencing. 767, 650 N.E.2d 224. 38, par. See People v. Bourke (1992), 223 Ill.App.3d 732, 166 Ill.Dec. The motion was denied and our supreme court affirmed that ruling. 82, 502 N.E.2d 345 (1986). Upon remand, the State filed a petition for a hearing on attenuation. 12, 735 N.E.2d 616 (2000), the defendant was convicted of two counts of murder committed during a forcible felony and was sentenced to death. 256, 637 N.E.2d 992 (1994) (Hobley I), and People v. Hobley, 182 Ill.2d 404, 231 Ill.Dec. The supreme court affirmed this denial, stating, The defendant could have raised these arguments in his first appeal, and his failure to do so justified the trial court's refusal to reconsider its rulings, under principles of collateral estoppel. Enis, 163 Ill.2d at 386, 206 Ill.Dec. The facts surrounding her stay at the police station and the content of various statements she made to police, including a statement taken by a court reporter wherein defendant admitted to shooting McCoy but claimed it was in self-defense, were laid out at length in Daniels I. 552, 500 N.E.2d 445.) She also asserted that incriminating statements she had given investigators were made in the absence of Miranda warnings and resulted from prolonged questioning and refusals by police to allow her to contact her attorney and family, which was a violation of her fifth and sixth amendment rights. After denial of her motion, defendant filed written offers of proof, which stated that, if called to testify at a hearing, Tyrone and Anthony would substantiate the allegations of abuse contained in her second amended motion to suppress. Ill. Rev.Stat.1985, ch. This court has consistently held that in cases where the defendants received an extended term of imprisonment pursuant to section 5-5-3.2(b)(2), the sentence must be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing. He was shot. mesquite to las vegas airport; greenville public school district address; houses for rent in huntsville, al under $600; Blog Post Title February 26, 2018. Following a jury trial in 1990 before Judge Michael P. Toomin, defendant Sheila Daniels was convicted of the first degree murder of her paraplegic boyfriend, David McCoy, and was sentenced to an 80-year prison term.1 On appeal, with one justice dissenting, this court ruled, inter alia, that the trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress statements, but reversed defendant's conviction, finding the admission of polygraph results at her trial improper. People v. Enis, 139 Ill.2d 264, 300, 151 Ill.Dec. Applying the analysis used in Hobley I and Hobley II to the facts before it, this court in Hinton held that the new evidence presented in the defendant's postconviction petition did not entitle the defendant to an evidentiary hearing because he, like Hobley, did not present sufficient evidence of an injury. Defendant first contends that Judge Urso erred in denying her a hearing on her motions to suppress filed after this court's decision in Daniels I. After an evidentiary hearing, Judge Toomin denied defendant's motion to suppress. Choices which are made on the basis of strategic considerations after a thorough investigation of all matters relevant to plausible options have traditionally been considered to be unchallengeable. In her motion to suppress filed before her first trial and in the first motion to suppress filed with Judge Urso, defendant said nothing about Anthony's beaten condition as being a reason for her inculpatory statements. The trial court disagreed and dismissed the petition. The trial court denied admission of the records. The two sisters are extremely close and were sure that they, along with their other sisters, have made their Pops proud. The second trial court denied this petition but did hold an independent basis hearing for the suppressed in-court identification. The record reflects that he testified that he had been struck, but he also testified that he did not make his statement because of this mistreatment, he made it because defendant told him to cooperate. The instant case is similar to Enis and dissimilar to Jones. Daniels, 230 Ill.App.3d at 532, 172 Ill.Dec. As pointed out earlier, this is an entirely new theory raised by defendant after the denial of her first motion to suppress and affirmance on appeal of that denial. When the police arrived at defendant's apartment, Cummings and several other officers knocked on defendant's door and identified themselves. what happened to marko ramius; a bittersweet life full movie eng sub kissasian In addition to what he had told Cummings, defendant told her that Sheila and McCoy had been arguing when Sheila accidentally shot McCoy. The trial court responded that the records were not available and instructed the jury to continue deliberating. Following closing arguments, the court found defendant guilty of first degree murder, armed robbery, and concealment of a homicidal death and later sentenced him to concurrent terms of 60 years' imprisonment for first degree murder, 20 years for armed robbery, and five years for concealment of a homicidal death. Business man & Millionaire. 887, 743 N.E.2d 1043 (2001). After hearing the testimony and the arguments of counsel, the court denied defendant's motion, finding that the police had probable cause to arrest defendant and that defendant's statements were not coerced by the police, but rather were voluntarily given. His girlfriend and her brother were the ones convicted of the murder. On direct appeal, this court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress, but remanded the case for a hearing on the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges. 1, 670 N.E.2d 679. In denying defendant's request for a hearing on her motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence, Judge Urso stated that the issues raised in the motion were properly litigated at the trial level and ruled upon by the appellate court. Judge Urso found that there was no new evidence nor were there exceptional circumstances warranting a hearing on the motion. With respect to her fourth amendment claim, he found that defendant had voluntarily accompanied police to the station. On remand to the trial court, the defendant renewed these motions and the trial court denied the defendant's request to reconsider. Again, the record does not support defendant's assertion. We follow those decisions and therefore, we vacate defendant's sentence and remand for imposition of a new sentence. Contact us. Secondly, the two-step analysis the Court set out in Thompson was the law in Illinois at the time Judge Toomin ruled upon defendant's motion to suppress. Further, there is no credible evidence in this record that the defendant's will was overborne ***.. by January 24, 2023 sanford bishop wife. In support of her claim of error, defendant relies upon People v. Greenspawn, 346 Ill. 484, 179 N.E. When defendant, who had brought the records to court with her, was questioned by defense counsel regarding the records, the State objected on the ground the documents had not been certified. Tyrone did not testify at defendant's motion to suppress. This court recently addressed this issue. Defendant then took the gun away from his sister and put it in his pocket. As the defendant in the instant case objected to her sentence in the circuit court and on her direct appeal, we apply a harmless error analysis. To warrant the use of a pretrial subpoena, a defendant must show: (1) that the documents requested are evidentiary and relevant; (2) that the documents are not otherwise procurable reasonably in advance of trial by exercise of due diligence; (3) that he or she cannot properly prepare for trial without production and inspection in advance of trial and that failure to obtain an inspection may tend to unreasonably delay trial; and (4) that the application is made in good faith and is not intended as a general fishing expedition. Shukovsky, 128 Ill.2d at 225, 131 Ill.Dec. 241, 788 N.E.2d 1117. About 30 minutes later, she accompanied police to Tyrone's home, where he was arrested and taken to the police station. David was killed by his then-long-term girlfriend, Sheila Daniels, and her brother. Countering defendant's motion to suppress, the State presented the testimony of Michael Cummings, the Chicago police detective assigned to investigate McCoy's murder. See M. Graham, Cleary & Graham's Handbook of Illinois Evidence 602.1, at 369 (7th ed.1999). Sheila Daniels, 41, first convicted in 1990, was ordered retried two years ago by the Illinois Appellate Court after the defense complained of prosecutorial misconduct. His conviction and sentence were affirmed in People v. Daniels, 230 Ill.App.3d 527, 172 Ill.Dec. 594, 789 N.E.2d 768) and reconsider our decision in light of the holdings in People v. Crespo, 203 Ill.2d 335, 273 Ill.Dec. After the trial court denied defendant's amended motion to quash arrest and suppress statements, she was granted leave to file an amended motion to suppress statements. All rights reserved. We reject defendant's argument that this is new evidence. Viewing the matter in terms of the doctrine of law of the case, there is no bar to the trial court conducting a new hearing. Detectives eventually found out that McCoy was killed over something extremely senseless. Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. 767, 650 N.E.2d 224 (1994) (Daniels I). Shortly thereafter, defendant was interviewed by an assistant State's Attorney, who advised him of his rights. 58, 539 N.E.2d 368. Therefore, only those facts necessary for proper consideration of the instant appeal will be repeated here. Defendant agreed, and while accompanied by three officers, arrived at the police station around 5:30 p.m. that day. 9-1(a)), armed robbery (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. Sheilawas slapped with an80 year sentence and Tyrone was hit with 60 years. Sheila was slapped with an 80 year sentence and Tyrone was hit with 60 years. The trial court's decision not to revisit a matter previously litigated in reliance upon the law of the case doctrine will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. Similarly, defendant argues the trial court should have admitted the medical records in this case because they supported her claim of self-defense in that they related to her state of mind at the time she shot McCoy. Prior to his trial, the defendant filed a motion to suppress claiming statements he had given police were the result of police torture. David McCoy (pictured in a framed photo in the above pic of Lisa Raye) was found shot to death on November 12, 1988 in the back seat of his Cadillac, which was parked in a Southside Chicago alley. 241, 788 N.E.2d 1117 (2001) and People v. Thurow, 203 Ill.2d 352, 272 Ill.Dec. She argues section 5-5-3.2(b)(2) of the Unified Code of Corrections (730 ILCS 5/5-5-3.2(b)(2) (West 1996)), which allowed the trial court to impose an extended sentence based upon his finding that the murder was accompanied by exceptionally brutal or heinous behavior, should have been decided by a jury, rather than the trial court. david ray mccoy sheila daniels chicago. The supreme court cited two facts which have been found to be special circumstances supporting a trial court's decision to hold new de novo hearings on motions to suppress after remand. 604], 645 N.E.2d at 865; see also People v. Huff, 308 Ill.App.3d 1046, 1049 [242 Ill.Dec. See 188 Ill.2d R. 341(e)(7); People v. Madej, 177 Ill.2d 116, 162, 226 Ill.Dec. 98 (1931), where the trial court refused to admit X-rays of the defendant's teeth into evidence. Defendant also argues that the trial court erred in failing to allow her to reopen her case in light of the testimony Tyrone and Anthony would present at a hearing on her motion to suppress. In People v. Cannon, 293 Ill.App.3d 634, 227 Ill.Dec. There followed a lengthy recitation of the testimony at the evidentiary hearing on the motion to suppress. Counsel further explained that Anthony's testimony, which Judge Toomin had precluded at the previous hearing, would also be presented. At 11:40 p.m., defendant was advised of her Miranda rights and agreed to take a polygraph exam, which lasted about 21/212 hours. Sheila then left the room and Cummings interviewed defendant again. 698, 557 N.E.2d 468.) She asserts their testimony constitutes new evidence, which bars application of the law of the case doctrine. Further, defendant cannot liken his situation to that of the defendant in People v. Rhoads (1979), 73 Ill.App.3d 288, 29 Ill.Dec. Another was where the defendant had been acquitted of some charges, thereby precluding him from seeking appellate review of the trial court's rulings. 509, 554 N.E.2d 444. During the hearing on the motions to quash the arrest and suppress evidence, defendant testified that, at approximately 3 a.m. on November 18, 1988, he was awakened by a knock at his door. He initially told the police that he did not know anything about the death of McCoy. FindLaw.com Free, trusted legal information for consumers and legal professionals, SuperLawyers.com Directory of U.S. attorneys with the exclusive Super Lawyers rating, Abogado.com The #1 Spanish-language legal website for consumers, LawInfo.com Nationwide attorney directory and legal consumer resources. Hobley II, 182 Ill.2d at 448-49, 231 Ill.Dec. David Ray McCoy Met His Demise at the Hands of His Then-Girlfriend Da Brat's father met his untimely death aged 52. 185, 786 N.E.2d 1019], quoting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 18, 119 S.Ct. 553, 696 N.E.2d 849 (1998). Defendant's conviction arose from the November 12, 1988, shooting death of McCoy in the garage of the home that he, defendant and her daughter shared at 1654 East 92nd Street in Chicago. The special circumstances present in Jones was the fact that the appellate court had previously reversed the defendant's conviction and held that the trial court's denial of a motion to suppress as to one of three statements was erroneous. She agreed to go along with the police because she was no longer able to resist and she wanted to go home. 767, 650 N.E.2d 224. However, during an episode of Lisa Rayesprior reality show,she cried uncontrollably as she and her daughter visited her dads grave site. 0. david ray mccoy sheila daniels chicago. The supreme court reversed that determination and granted the defendant a hearing on his petition. In connection with the motion to suppress, defendant filed two subpoenas duces tecum upon the City, requesting, inter alia, the production of all documents relating to disciplinary complaints against any of the officers at Area 2 who were expected to be called as witnesses at her trial. Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. 604, 645 N.E.2d 856 (1994). 1526, 128 L.Ed.2d 293 (1994). at 2351, 147 L.Ed.2d at 442. David Ray Mccoy was killed by his girlfriend of 10 years, Sheila Daniels, and her brother, Tyrone. Defense counsel's use of Sheila's statement was thus further support for counsel's arguments that defendant was not accountable for Sheila's actions. Thus, defendant's contention that his counsel did not provide adequate legal assistance in this regard must fail. According to Cummings, defendant stated that Sheila Daniels shot McCoy in the back of his head while McCoy was seated in his car in his garage. (Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689, 104 S.Ct. The police picked Anthony up based on defendant's utterly false story. This court first looked to the holdings in People v. Hobley, 159 Ill.2d 272, 202 Ill.Dec. David's death shocked many of his business associates as he spoke fondly of Daniels, and the two had been together for over ten years. Defendant next contends that his trial counsel erroneously misapprehended the applicable law on accountability. Defendant directs us to the testimony at her second trial where Lt. Phillip Cline of the Chicago police department was asked on redirect why on November 12 and 17 of 1988, he did not advise defendant of her Miranda warnings. A woman twice convicted for the 1988 murder of South Side entrepreneur David Ray McCoy was sentenced Tuesday to 80 years in prison. 457, 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995), her original motion to suppress would have been granted. When he asked who it was, the police identified themselves and told him to open the door and let them in. Each of the Taylor line of cases speaks of an order itself, not merely of issues upon which the order may or may not have turned. Williams, 138 Ill.2d at 390-91, 150 Ill.Dec. Wilson v. Clark, 84 Ill.2d 186, 192, 49 Ill.Dec. Defendant acknowledges that in Daniels I this court ruled that defendant had voluntarily accompanied officers to the police station, but she argues that is a separate and distinct issue from whether she was advised of her Miranda rights. As for the voluntariness of her confession, Judge Toomin, citing People v. Dodds, 190 Ill.App.3d 1083, 138 Ill.Dec. Defendant's statement, taken by the court reporter and given to Democopoulos, was then entered into evidence over defense counsel's continuing objection to the admission of defendant's statements to the police. Despite the presence of this fact, which was known to defendant at her first trial, she did not assert it as a reason for suppression before Judge Toomin. 918, 735 N.E.2d 569 (2000). Immediately after his arrest, defendant was taken to the police station, where he was questioned by the police. The trial court denied the defendant's request for a new suppression hearing. Cook County. She further alleged that prior to seeing her brother Anthony in a beaten condition, police had threatened to charge her and/or Anthony with McCoy's murder for which they could receive the death penalty. Further, he could not read or write and did not know that the consent form he signed meant that anything found in his apartment could be used against him in court. At the time, he was also in the police station and was bleeding after having been beaten by police. She testified that she told him to sign the papers so they could go home but Tyrone refused. After a discussion of the evidence and the applicable case law, which consisted almost entirely of defendant's arguments based on the fourth amendment, we held, Accordingly, we find that the circuit court properly denied her motion to suppress. Daniels I, 272 Ill.App.3d at 336, 208 Ill.Dec. 38, par. Defense counsel pursued a similar line of questioning in cross-examining Democopoulos. The fact that Lt. Cline was of the opinion that defendant was not under arrest and not in custody does not alter the fact that Judge Toomin applied the proper test and concluded that her admissions to police were admissible. In response, the City moved to quash the subpoenas on the grounds that the materials requested were irrelevant and confidential and that the subpoenas were the result of speculative fishing expeditions. Alternatively, the City requested an in camera inspection of the documents and the issuance of a protective order in the event the subpoenas were not quashed. In People v. Patterson, 192 Ill.2d 93, 249 Ill.Dec. 698, 557 N.E.2d 468.) 2052, 2064-65; People v. Davidson (1990), 196 Ill.App.3d 634, 638, 143 Ill.Dec. Based upon the foregoing, we find that, based upon defendant's assertions of error, defendant was not denied effective assistance of trial counsel. In Thompson, the Supreme Court held that a state court's determination as to whether a suspect was in custody while being interrogated for purposes of Miranda was not entitled to a statutory presumption of correctness during federal habeas corpus review, but was a mixed question of law and fact warranting independent review by a federal habeas court. She signed the court-reported statement without reading it because she did not have her eyeglasses. There are various reports of the motive behind McCoy's murder. After Sheila left, defendant decided to cooperate with the police; however, he was still not advised of his constitutional rights. (Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. We agreed, reversed the defendant's conviction and ordered a hearing on his motion to suppress. The judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is thus affirmed. 312, 556 N.E.2d 1214. They reportedly then drove McCoys body in his Cadillac to the alley and left him thereso sad. Affirmed in part and vacated in part; cause remanded. Thereafter, defendant drove McCoy's car to an alley near McCoy's place of business, with Sheila following in her own car. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. After a hearing pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. Clearly, defense counsel was aware of the applicable law concerning accountability and presented a defense based on that law, not on any "misapprehension" of it. She said, I told them what happened and just tell them what happened, tell them the truth." _taboola.push({ Defendant lastly argues that defense counsel improperly refused to allow him to testify. Defendant also argues that Judge Urso should have held a hearing on her motion to suppress based upon the Supreme Court's decision in Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 114 S.Ct. Correspondingly, on review, the determination of the reasonableness of trial counsel's actions must be evaluated from trial counsel's perspective at the time of the alleged error, without hindsight, in light of the totality of the circumstances. People v. Feagans, 134 Ill.App.3d 252, 89 Ill.Dec. She later filed her reoffered motion to suppress, which was also denied. In her second amended motion to quash arrest and suppress statements filed on May 21, 1996, defendant again alleged she had made admissions due to the physical abuse Tyrone had endured at the hands of the police. In a separate bench trial, defendant's brother, Tyrone Daniels, was also convicted of first degree murder in connection with McCoy's death. 343, 795 N.E.2d 1011 (2003) and People v. Alvarez, 344 Ill.App.3d 179, 278 Ill.Dec. Absent an abuse of discretion, this court will not reverse the trial court's determination with respect to the admission of exhibits into evidence. He was handcuffed tightly to the wall and was not allowed to go to the washroom. Crespo, 203 Ill.2d at 348-49, 273 Ill.Dec. The X-rays had been taken in Chicago at the same time he had allegedly attempted to negotiate a fraudulent check in Rockford. 321, 696 N.E.2d 313 (1998) (Hobley II). After this court reversed her conviction and remanded the case, defendant filed another motion to quash arrest and suppress statements, which was twice amended and once reoffered. While other reports suggest that Daniels killed himafter the two had an argument at their home over a high electric bill. There are various reports of the motive behind McCoy's murder. 767, 650 N.E.2d 224. 58, 539 N.E.2d 368 (1989), this court stated: With regard to pretrial motions to suppress evidence, the rule is that once a motion to suppress has been ruled upon by one judge, that motion cannot be relitigated later before another judge, absent a showing of exceptional circumstances or of additional evidence that has become available since the first hearing to suppress. After giving his statement to Cummings, defendant spoke with Sheila in the interview room. Her second trial, held in August before Cook County Criminal Court Judge Joseph Urso, ended in the same verdict. When asked on direct whether the records reflect and relate to the injuries that [defendant had] already testified [she] sustained in the incident with Ray McCoy, defendant responded, Yes.. As no such special circumstances were presented in Enis, there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court's refusal to revisit its rulings on these matters in preparation for [the] defendant's second trial. Enis, 163 Ill.2d at 387, 206 Ill.Dec. 154, 704 N.E.2d 727 (1998). Although Sheila's statement is not contained in the record, the court's and the attorneys' allusions to that statement indicate that defense counsel attempted to use it to show that defendant was unaware that Sheila was going to shoot McCoy. The court found that there was no evidence that the defendant had sustained injuries consistent with his claim of police brutality. Enis, 163 Ill.2d at 387 [206 Ill.Dec. 1, 670 N.E.2d 679 (1996), the defendant similarly alleged that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his postconviction petition because of newly discovered evidence regarding Area 2 which disclosed a pattern of brutality directed at suspects in custody. In his lengthy findings of facts, Judge Toomin first reiterated the theories raised in defendant's motion to suppress. Cannon, 293 Ill.App.3d at 642-43, 227 Ill.Dec. 64, 762 N.E.2d 633. Defendant was clearly aware that she had seen Tyrone and he had been injured. AIR Awareness Outreach; AIR Business Lunch & Learn; AIR Community of Kindness; AIR Dogs: Paws For Minds AIR Hero AIR & NJAMHAA Conference Owned motels and nightclubs in Chicago. Thereafter, the assistant State's Attorney spoke with defendant and advised him of his rights. In support of those motions, defendant alleged that the police had lacked probable cause to arrest him, that he was not advised of his constitutional rights at any time subsequent to his arrest, that his admissions were involuntary and the result of police coercion, and that Sheila had acted as an agent of the police. 69, 538 N.E.2d 444. 5-2(c); People v. Foster (1990), 198 Ill.App.3d 986, 145 Ill.Dec. The trial court found that the defendant waived the issue of his allegedly coerced confession by failing to raise it on direct appeal. The sequence of events relating to the arrests of Anthony and Tyrone as recited in Daniels I, 272 Ill.App.3d at 333-34, 208 Ill.Dec. Following a jury trial in 1990 before Judge Michael P. Toomin, defendant Sheila Daniels was convicted of the first degree murder of her paraplegic boyfriend, David McCoy, and was sentenced to an 80-year prison term. In a motion to cite additional authority filed after oral arguments were heard in this case, defendant cited the recent holding in People v. Jones, 315 Ill.App.3d 500, 504, 248 Ill.Dec. The testimony presented established that Sheila Daniels and her daughter lived with McCoy. Thus, it is the position of *** defendant that the only law of the case in this case is the law pronounced by this court in its opinion in [Daniels I]. In the instant case, defendant's discovery requests are much broader than those in Hinton. The Williams court stated: [N]one of our Taylor line of cases limited the Taylor rule only to those subsidiary issues that may actually have been considered by a judge whose appealable order a judge of coordinate authority later undertakes to modify. 20, 595 N.E.2d 83 (1992).

Our Town Stage Manager Final Monologue, Spruce Ridge Bedroom Set, Ancestral Puebloans And Mississippians Have In Common, Eyes Wide Shut Was Alice At The Ritual, Articles D