NOTICE 2026 IL App (4th) 250673-U This Order was filed under FILED Supreme Court Rule 23 and is July 2, 2026 NO. 4-25-0673 not precedent except in the Carla Bender limited circumstances allowed 4th District Appellate under Rule 23(e)(1). IN THE APPELLATE COURT Court, IL
OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of v. ) Winnebago County DARRELL DESMOND McLIN, ) No. 21CF1066 Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Honorable ) Brendan A. Maher, ) Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE GRISCHOW delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Steigmann and Justice DeArmond concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: Defendant’s appeal was dismissed because of his failure to comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020).
¶2 Defendant, Darrell Desmond McLin, appearing pro se, appeals from his
convictions of first degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1 (a)(2) (West 2020)) and attempted first degree
murder (id. §§ 8-4 (a), 9-1(a)(1)). Because of the deficiencies of defendant’s appellant brief, we
strike his brief and dismiss the appeal.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 In August 2021, defendant was indicted on one count of first degree murder and
two counts of attempted first degree murder in connection with his act on June 10, 2021, of
personally discharging a weapon at Latonya Whitfield, Michael Finneran, and Rashad Peltzer,
which caused Whitfield’s death. Before trial, the trial court denied a motion to dismiss based on allegations defendant was denied his statutory right to a speedy trial.
¶5 In January 2024, a jury found defendant not guilty of the attempted murder of
Finneran and guilty of the remaining charges. Defendant filed posttrial motions alleging various
issues, including speedy trial issues. Defendant’s counsel withdrew, and defendant filed pro se
motions alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Following a preliminary hearing pursuant to
People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (1984), the trial court denied the motions and sentenced
defendant to an aggregate term of 165 years’ imprisonment.
¶6 This appeal followed.
¶7 Defendant was appointed counsel on appeal. However, counsel later was allowed
to withdraw after defendant requested to proceed pro se. After being granted an extension of time
to prepare his brief, defendant filed his brief on March 5, 2026. The State filed its brief on May 4,
2026, noting serious deficiencies in defendant’s brief. In late May 2026, after the time to file a
reply brief had passed, defendant attempted to file a motion to amend his brief, but it was returned
due to defendant’s lack of proof of service to the State. Defendant then filed another motion
seeking to amend his brief. In that motion, defendant admitted his brief “is fundamentally deficient,
and a brief in name only because it lacks meaningful compliance with [the rules governing
appellate briefs].” This court denied the motion.
¶8 II. ANALYSIS
¶9 On appeal, in a difficult to follow brief that omits nearly all of the required
elements, defendant argues (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss premised on
a statutory speedy trial violation, (2) the indictment was void due to a defective endorsement based
on the unsworn testimony of witnesses, (3) the prosecution used deceptive evidence and misled
the grand jury, and (4) trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. Because defendant’s appellant
-2- brief is an instrument of self-destruction and fails to comply with nearly all subsections of Illinois
Supreme Court Rule 341 (eff. Oct. 1, 2020), which governs the form of appellate briefs, we dismiss
the appeal.
¶ 10 This court has the discretion to strike an appellant’s brief and dismiss an appeal
when the appellant’s brief does not comply with the requirements of Rule 341. Litwin v. County
of La Salle, 2021 IL App (3d) 200410, ¶ 11. This is a harsh but appropriate sanction when the
appellant’s violations of procedural rules hinder our review of the case. Id.
¶ 11 “Failure to comply with the rules regarding appeal briefs is not an inconsequential
matter.” Burmac Metal Finishing Co. v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co., 356 Ill. App. 3d 471,
478 (2005). The purpose of the rules is to require parties before a reviewing court to present clear
and orderly arguments so the court can properly ascertain and dispose of the issues involved.
Zadrozny v. City Colleges of Chicago, 220 Ill. App. 3d 290, 292 (1991). A brief that lacks any
substantial conformity to the rules may justifiably be stricken. Tannenbaum v. Lincoln National
Bank, 143 Ill. App. 3d 572, 574 (1986).
¶ 12 A pro se litigant, such as defendant here, is not entitled to more lenient treatment
than attorneys and must comply with the same rules and is held to the same standard as a licensed
attorney. Holzrichter v. Yorath, 2013 IL App (1st) 110287, ¶ 78. This is true in both the trial court
and this court of review. “[T]he procedural rules governing the content and form of appellate briefs
are mandatory and not suggestions.” Litwin, 2021 IL App (3d) 200410, ¶ 3. A pro se appellant is
not excused from following the requirements of Rule 341. Id. We recognize defendant is appearing
pro se by his own choice, having rejected the assistance of court-appointed counsel, and the perils
of choosing to do so are reaffirmed. See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 852 (1975)
(Blackmun, J., dissenting, joined by Burger and Rehnquist, JJ.), “[i]f there is any truth to the old
-3- proverb that ‘one who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client,’ the Court by its opinion today now
bestows a constitutional right on one to make a fool of himself.”
¶ 13 Defendant’s appellate brief violates multiple rules that govern appeals. For
example, Rule 341(h)(1)-(4) requires (1) a table of contents, (2) an introductory paragraph that
includes the nature of the action and the judgment appealed from, (3) a statement of the issues
presented for review, and (4) a statement of jurisdiction. Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(1)-(4) (eff. Oct. 1,
2020). Defendant has provided none of those items in his brief.
¶ 14 Rule 341(h)(8)-(9) also requires an appellant’s brief to contain a short conclusion
stating the precise relief sought and an appendix. Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(8)-(9) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020).
Defendant’s brief does not contain those sections. Defendant’s brief is also over the page limit.
See Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(b)(1) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020). The cover is also deficient because it does not
indicate the status of the parties, the addresses of the parties, or the name of the trial judge entering
the judgment to be reviewed. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(d) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020). Defendant also fails to
properly refer to himself in the same manner as in the trial court. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(f) (eff. Oct.
1, 2020).
¶ 15 Rule 341(h)(6) requires an appellant’s brief contain a statement of the facts
necessary to an understanding of the case, stated fairly and without argument or comment, and
with appropriate citations to the record on appeal. Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(6) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020). “A
reviewing court is not obligated to search the record for evidence on which to base a reversal, and
unless reference is made to those portions of the record supporting reversal, the argument will not
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOTICE 2026 IL App (4th) 250673-U This Order was filed under FILED Supreme Court Rule 23 and is July 2, 2026 NO. 4-25-0673 not precedent except in the Carla Bender limited circumstances allowed 4th District Appellate under Rule 23(e)(1). IN THE APPELLATE COURT Court, IL
OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of v. ) Winnebago County DARRELL DESMOND McLIN, ) No. 21CF1066 Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Honorable ) Brendan A. Maher, ) Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE GRISCHOW delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Steigmann and Justice DeArmond concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: Defendant’s appeal was dismissed because of his failure to comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020).
¶2 Defendant, Darrell Desmond McLin, appearing pro se, appeals from his
convictions of first degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1 (a)(2) (West 2020)) and attempted first degree
murder (id. §§ 8-4 (a), 9-1(a)(1)). Because of the deficiencies of defendant’s appellant brief, we
strike his brief and dismiss the appeal.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 In August 2021, defendant was indicted on one count of first degree murder and
two counts of attempted first degree murder in connection with his act on June 10, 2021, of
personally discharging a weapon at Latonya Whitfield, Michael Finneran, and Rashad Peltzer,
which caused Whitfield’s death. Before trial, the trial court denied a motion to dismiss based on allegations defendant was denied his statutory right to a speedy trial.
¶5 In January 2024, a jury found defendant not guilty of the attempted murder of
Finneran and guilty of the remaining charges. Defendant filed posttrial motions alleging various
issues, including speedy trial issues. Defendant’s counsel withdrew, and defendant filed pro se
motions alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Following a preliminary hearing pursuant to
People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181 (1984), the trial court denied the motions and sentenced
defendant to an aggregate term of 165 years’ imprisonment.
¶6 This appeal followed.
¶7 Defendant was appointed counsel on appeal. However, counsel later was allowed
to withdraw after defendant requested to proceed pro se. After being granted an extension of time
to prepare his brief, defendant filed his brief on March 5, 2026. The State filed its brief on May 4,
2026, noting serious deficiencies in defendant’s brief. In late May 2026, after the time to file a
reply brief had passed, defendant attempted to file a motion to amend his brief, but it was returned
due to defendant’s lack of proof of service to the State. Defendant then filed another motion
seeking to amend his brief. In that motion, defendant admitted his brief “is fundamentally deficient,
and a brief in name only because it lacks meaningful compliance with [the rules governing
appellate briefs].” This court denied the motion.
¶8 II. ANALYSIS
¶9 On appeal, in a difficult to follow brief that omits nearly all of the required
elements, defendant argues (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss premised on
a statutory speedy trial violation, (2) the indictment was void due to a defective endorsement based
on the unsworn testimony of witnesses, (3) the prosecution used deceptive evidence and misled
the grand jury, and (4) trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. Because defendant’s appellant
-2- brief is an instrument of self-destruction and fails to comply with nearly all subsections of Illinois
Supreme Court Rule 341 (eff. Oct. 1, 2020), which governs the form of appellate briefs, we dismiss
the appeal.
¶ 10 This court has the discretion to strike an appellant’s brief and dismiss an appeal
when the appellant’s brief does not comply with the requirements of Rule 341. Litwin v. County
of La Salle, 2021 IL App (3d) 200410, ¶ 11. This is a harsh but appropriate sanction when the
appellant’s violations of procedural rules hinder our review of the case. Id.
¶ 11 “Failure to comply with the rules regarding appeal briefs is not an inconsequential
matter.” Burmac Metal Finishing Co. v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co., 356 Ill. App. 3d 471,
478 (2005). The purpose of the rules is to require parties before a reviewing court to present clear
and orderly arguments so the court can properly ascertain and dispose of the issues involved.
Zadrozny v. City Colleges of Chicago, 220 Ill. App. 3d 290, 292 (1991). A brief that lacks any
substantial conformity to the rules may justifiably be stricken. Tannenbaum v. Lincoln National
Bank, 143 Ill. App. 3d 572, 574 (1986).
¶ 12 A pro se litigant, such as defendant here, is not entitled to more lenient treatment
than attorneys and must comply with the same rules and is held to the same standard as a licensed
attorney. Holzrichter v. Yorath, 2013 IL App (1st) 110287, ¶ 78. This is true in both the trial court
and this court of review. “[T]he procedural rules governing the content and form of appellate briefs
are mandatory and not suggestions.” Litwin, 2021 IL App (3d) 200410, ¶ 3. A pro se appellant is
not excused from following the requirements of Rule 341. Id. We recognize defendant is appearing
pro se by his own choice, having rejected the assistance of court-appointed counsel, and the perils
of choosing to do so are reaffirmed. See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 852 (1975)
(Blackmun, J., dissenting, joined by Burger and Rehnquist, JJ.), “[i]f there is any truth to the old
-3- proverb that ‘one who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client,’ the Court by its opinion today now
bestows a constitutional right on one to make a fool of himself.”
¶ 13 Defendant’s appellate brief violates multiple rules that govern appeals. For
example, Rule 341(h)(1)-(4) requires (1) a table of contents, (2) an introductory paragraph that
includes the nature of the action and the judgment appealed from, (3) a statement of the issues
presented for review, and (4) a statement of jurisdiction. Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(1)-(4) (eff. Oct. 1,
2020). Defendant has provided none of those items in his brief.
¶ 14 Rule 341(h)(8)-(9) also requires an appellant’s brief to contain a short conclusion
stating the precise relief sought and an appendix. Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(8)-(9) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020).
Defendant’s brief does not contain those sections. Defendant’s brief is also over the page limit.
See Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(b)(1) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020). The cover is also deficient because it does not
indicate the status of the parties, the addresses of the parties, or the name of the trial judge entering
the judgment to be reviewed. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(d) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020). Defendant also fails to
properly refer to himself in the same manner as in the trial court. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(f) (eff. Oct.
1, 2020).
¶ 15 Rule 341(h)(6) requires an appellant’s brief contain a statement of the facts
necessary to an understanding of the case, stated fairly and without argument or comment, and
with appropriate citations to the record on appeal. Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(6) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020). “A
reviewing court is not obligated to search the record for evidence on which to base a reversal, and
unless reference is made to those portions of the record supporting reversal, the argument will not
be considered.” Webb v. Angell, 155 Ill. App. 3d 848, 854 (1987). Defendant has not provided any
statement of facts. Instead, defendant scattered sometimes unsubstantiated facts with no citations
to the record throughout his argument, with pages from the record and copies of case law inserted
-4- in between pages of argument.
¶ 16 Further, Rule 341(h)(7) requires the brief contain an argument section, “which shall
contain the contentions of the appellant and the reasons therefor, with citation of the authorities
and the pages of the record relied on.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(7) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020). An appellant is
obligated to define issues clearly, cite pertinent authority, and present a cohesive legal argument.
Gandy v. Kimbrough, 406 Ill. App. 3d 867, 875 (2010). In much the same manner that this court
is not obligated to search the record to find reasons to reverse the trial court’s judgment, this court
is also not a depository into which an appellant may dump the burden of research and argument
with regard to the issues he or she raises on appeal. In re Marriage of Hundley, 2019 IL App (4th)
180380, ¶ 82. Instead, this court is “entitled to have the issues clearly defined and a cohesive legal
argument presented.” Id. Contentions that are inadequately presented on appeal, such as by the
failure to provide coherent argument or cite pertinent authority, do not merit consideration.
Holmstrom v. Kunis, 221 Ill. App. 3d 317, 325 (1991).
¶ 17 Here, defendant’s legal contentions are scattered throughout the brief and, as
previously noted, documents from the record and copies of cases are inserted between pages of
argument. While defendant provides boilerplate legal principles and citations and scatters facts
throughout his arguments, he often does not explain how the case law applies to the facts of his
case. Defendant also includes unsubstantiated facts without citation to the record in his legal
argument sections. In some sections, such as in defendant’s arguments concerning the grand jury
and ineffective assistance of counsel, defendant presents conclusory allegations followed by case
citations, with no explanation of their relevance or how they apply to the facts of his case.
Defendant’s lack of a statement of the issues presented for review, coupled with his lack of a
cogent statement of facts and meaningful legal argument, renders his brief insufficient for appellate
-5- review. We are not required to do defendant’s homework for him.
¶ 18 Finally, we note defendant filed a motion admitting his brief “is fundamentally
deficient, and a brief in name only.” While defendant recognized that and moved to amend the
brief, he did so only after the State noted the deficiencies and the time for filing his reply brief had
passed. Defendant was required to present a proper brief in the first instance, not belatedly, after
the deficiencies were noted by the State. Accordingly, we conclude that, based on defendant’s
numerous violations of Rule 341(h), his appeal should be dismissed.
¶ 19 We recognize the dismissal of an appeal is a harsh sanction. However, because of
the deficiencies in defendant’s appellant’s brief, the dismissal of the appeal is appropriate.
¶ 20 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 21 For the foregoing reasons, we strike defendant’s brief and dismiss the appeal.
¶ 22 Appeal dismissed.
-6-