People v. Mossette

── People v. Mossette ── Court: Appellate Court of Illinois Date: May 15, 2026 Category: General 2026 IL App (1st) 240757-U No. 1-24-0757 SIXTH DIVISION May 15, 2026 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). ____________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT ____________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of Cook County, Illinois. Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) v. ) No. 18 CR 12039 ) CORNELIUS MOSSETTE, ) ) The Honorable Defendant-Appellant. ) Stanley J. Sacks, ) Judge Presiding. ____________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE PUCINSKI delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice C.A. Walker and Justice Hyman concurred in the judgment. ORDER ¶1 Held: The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for a new trial that alleged trial counsel was ineffective. Further, its finding that defendant caused the victim severe bodily injury was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. ¶2 Following a jury trial, defendant Cornelius Mossette was found guilty of two counts of attempted first-degree murder with a firearm (720 ILCS 5/8-4(a), 9-1(a)(1) (West 2018)), and one count each of aggravated battery of a child under 13 years old causing great bodily harm (id. § 12- 3.05(b)(1)), aggravated battery while armed with a firearm (id. § 12-3.05(e)(1)), and aggravated discharge of a firearm (id. § 24-1.2(a)(2)). He was sentenced to consecutive terms of 21 years’  1-24-0757 imprisonment for the two attempted murder counts, and a concurrent term of 4 years’ imprisonment for aggravated discharge of a firearm. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial where he established that he was denied the right to effective assistance of counsel. He also argues that the trial court erred in sentencing him to consecutive sentences for attempted murder, because the evidence did not establish that he inflicted “severe bodily injury.” For the following reasons, we affirm. ¶3 I. BACKGROUND ¶4 Defendant was charged by indictment with multiple offenses arising from an incident on July 25, 2018, wherein defendant allegedly discharged a firearm at Jose Morales, his minor daughter J.M., and Morales’ friend Joshua Knapp. Morales and J.M. were both struck by the gunfire. ¶5 Defendant was represented by private counsel, Glenn Jazwiec, during pretrial and trial proceedings. The State proceeded with the following counts at trial: attempted murder of J.M. and Morales, aggravated battery of J.M. and Morales, and aggravated discharge of a firearm at Knapp. ¶6 A. Jury Trial ¶7 At trial, the evidence established th