<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Appeal Victories &#8211; Frank J. Himel</title>
	<atom:link href="https://frankhimelcriminaldefense.com/category/appeal-victories/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://frankhimelcriminaldefense.com</link>
	<description>Criminal Defense Law</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2020 19:43:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.1</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>People v. MF</title>
		<link>https://frankhimelcriminaldefense.com/people-v-mf/</link>
					<comments>https://frankhimelcriminaldefense.com/people-v-mf/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Frank Himel]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2020 16:42:37 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Appeal Victories]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://frankhimelcriminaldefense.com/?p=1024</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[People v. MF Issue on Appeal: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel and Hearsay Evidence People v. MF, 336 Ill.App.3d 739 (1st Dist. 2002) In that case, the defendant went to trial with another lawyer, and he was convicted of attempt first-degree murder, armed robbery, and aggravated battery with a firearm and sentenced to 24 years in [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Issue on Appeal: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel and Hearsay Evidence People v. MF, 336 Ill.App.3d 739 (1st Dist. 2002) In that case, the defendant went to trial with another lawyer, and he was convicted of attempt first-degree murder, armed robbery, and aggravated battery with a firearm and sentenced to 24 years in prison. While the case was pending, and prior to trial…</p>
<p><a href="https://frankhimelcriminaldefense.com/people-v-mf/" rel="nofollow">Source</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://frankhimelcriminaldefense.com/people-v-mf/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>People v. Lofton</title>
		<link>https://frankhimelcriminaldefense.com/people-v-lofton/</link>
					<comments>https://frankhimelcriminaldefense.com/people-v-lofton/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Frank Himel]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2020 16:40:21 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Appeal Victories]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://frankhimelcriminaldefense.com/?p=1021</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[People v. Lofton Issue on Appeal: Sufficiency of the Evidence People v. Lofton, 2011 IL App (1st) 101761-U In that case, Himel’s client, Lofton, was charged with possession of cannabis with intent to deliver. Lofton was convicted by the judge and sentenced to 5 years in prison. Himel appealed the case to the Illinois Appellate [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Issue on Appeal: Sufficiency of the Evidence People v. Lofton, 2011 IL App (1st) 101761-U In that case, Himel’s client, Lofton, was charged with possession of cannabis with intent to deliver. Lofton was convicted by the judge and sentenced to 5 years in prison. Himel appealed the case to the Illinois Appellate Court contending that the evidence was insufficient to prove that Lofton…</p>
<p><a href="https://frankhimelcriminaldefense.com/people-v-lofton/" rel="nofollow">Source</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://frankhimelcriminaldefense.com/people-v-lofton/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>People v. Smith</title>
		<link>https://frankhimelcriminaldefense.com/people-v-smith/</link>
					<comments>https://frankhimelcriminaldefense.com/people-v-smith/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Frank Himel]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2020 15:06:09 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Appeal Victories]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://frankhimelcriminaldefense.com/?p=1007</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[People v. Smith Issues Raised on Appeal: Prosecutorial Misconduct and Jury Instructions In that case, Smith went to trial with another attorney and he was convicted of attempted murder of a police officer and sentenced to 35 years in prison.&#160; During closing arguments, the prosecutor repeatedly made comments to the jury that Smith had never [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Issues Raised on Appeal: Prosecutorial Misconduct and Jury Instructions In that case, Smith went to trial with another attorney and he was convicted of attempted murder of a police officer and sentenced to 35 years in prison. During closing arguments, the prosecutor repeatedly made comments to the jury that Smith had never presenting any evidence that he didn’t try to kill the…</p>
<p><a href="https://frankhimelcriminaldefense.com/people-v-smith/" rel="nofollow">Source</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://frankhimelcriminaldefense.com/people-v-smith/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>People v. Coleman</title>
		<link>https://frankhimelcriminaldefense.com/people-v-coleman/</link>
					<comments>https://frankhimelcriminaldefense.com/people-v-coleman/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Frank Himel]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2020 22:54:06 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Appeal Victories]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://frankhimelcriminaldefense.com/?p=880</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[People v. Coleman Issue Raised on Appeal: &#160;4th Amendment Search and Seizure People v. Coleman, 2013 IL App (1st) 130030 In that case, Himel’s client, Coleman, was charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. At the trial court level, Himel filed a motion to suppress evidence on the grounds that the [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Issue Raised on Appeal: 4th Amendment Search and Seizure People v. Coleman, 2013 IL App (1st) 130030 In that case, Himel’s client, Coleman, was charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. At the trial court level, Himel filed a motion to suppress evidence on the grounds that the search of Coleman’s vehicle was unconstitutional. The trial court granted…</p>
<p><a href="https://frankhimelcriminaldefense.com/people-v-coleman/" rel="nofollow">Source</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://frankhimelcriminaldefense.com/people-v-coleman/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
