Criminal Law

Watkins v. U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Criminal Court
Mootness Doctrine
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 18-2967
Decision Date: 
June 16, 2022
Federal District: 
C.D. Ill.
Holding: 
Vacated and remanded

Ct. of Appeals dismissed as moot defendant’s appeal of Dist. Ct.’s order that denied defendant’s second section 2241 petition that challenged his mandatory life sentence on his drug distribution charge, where said sentence was based on three prior convictions for felony drug offense, and where defendant argued that two of his prior convictions did not qualify as predicate felony drug offenses under 21 USC 841(b)(A). While instant case was on appeal, plaintiff filed successful motion to reduce his sentence under section 404 of First Step Act of 2018 that resulted in new sentence to time served of approximately 15 years and imposition of reduced eight-year term of supervised release. Instant appeal is moot, since original life sentence was no longer applicable, and defendant received reduced sentence via his First Step Act claim. Moreover, fact that there was remote possibility that Dist. Ct. could sentence defendant to lower than 15-year term of incarceration that he received in his First Step Act claim did not require different result, where any further reduction in his term of incarceration would not actually shorten his prison time, even if Ct. of Appeals were to reach merits of instant appeal. Also, Ct. rejected defendant’s contention that decision on merits in instant appeal might produce reduced term of supervised release, since mere possibility that decision on instant appeal might influence Dist. Ct.‘s determination of supervised release on any remand was not enough to keep case alive, especially where Dist. Ct. had wide discretion on its own under section 3553(a) to impose new term of supervised release.

People v. Leib

Illinois Supreme Court
Criminal Court
Sex Offender
Citation
Case Number: 
2022 IL 126645
Decision Date: 
Thursday, June 16, 2022
Holding: 
Judgments affirmed.
Justice: 
OVERSTREET

Defendant was found guilty of being a child sex offender in a school zone in violation of section 11-9.3(a) of the Criminal Code. He appealed, arguing he was not found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because the State failed to establish that he was on “real property comprising any school.” The appellate court affirmed. The Supreme Court also affirmed, finding that the property at issue, a parking lot used for school purposes, was “real property comprising any school” and that the evidence supported the reasonable probability that defendant was aware he was on school property. (GARMAN, THEIS, MICHAEL J. BURKE, and CARTER, concurring, and ANNE M. BURKE, and NEVILLE, dissenting.)

People v. Aljohani

Illinois Supreme Court
Criminal Court
Emergency Aid Exception
Citation
Case Number: 
2022 IL 127037
Decision Date: 
Thursday, June 16, 2022
Holding: 
Judgments affirmed.
Justice: 
GARMAN

Defendant was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to 23 years in prison. On appeal, defendant argued that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence based on the community caretaking doctrine and that the State failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellate court held that the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement applied and that the evidence was sufficient to prove him guilty. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, finding there was an objective, reasonable basis for believing that an injured individual required aid and that the officers had probable cause to enter the defendant’s apartment. The court also found the evidence sufficient to support the conviction. (ANNE M. BURKE, THEIS, NEVILLE, MICHAEL J. BURKE, OVERSTREET and CARTER, concurring)

People v. Brown

Illinois Supreme Court
Criminal Court
Firearm Owners Identification Card Act (FOID)
Citation
Case Number: 
2022 IL 127201
Decision Date: 
Thursday, June 16, 2022
Holding: 
Vacated and remanded.
Justice: 
ANNE M. BURKE

Defendant was charged with violating section 2(a)(1) of the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Defendant argued section 2(a)(1) was unconstitutional as applied to her and the circuit court entered a written order finding the provision unconstitutional. In a prior appeal, the Illinois Supreme Court found the trial court ruling was not necessary to the resolution of the case, vacated the trial court order, and remanded the cause with directions to enter a modified judgment order to exclude the ruling that section 2(a)(1) was unconstitutional. On remand the circuit court concluded it would not be in the “best interests of justice” to follow the directions of the Supreme Court and entered a different order. The State appealed and the Supreme Court again vacated and remanded on the basis that the circuit court had no authority to set aside the directions of the Illinois Supreme Court. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Michael J. Burke argued the Court should consider the appeal on its merits. (THEIS, NEVILLE, and CARTER, concurring, and MICHAEL J. BURKE, GARMAN, and OVERSTREET, dissenting.)

U.S. v. Newton

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Criminal Court
Sentencing
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 21-2514
Decision Date: 
June 15, 2022
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill. E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion seeking compassionate release under 18 USC section 3582(c)(1)(A), even though defendant argued that his asthma and its immunosuppressing corticosteroid treatment put him at risk for serious illness if he contracted COVID-19. Court decisions in Broadfield, 5 F.4th 801, and Ugbah, 4 F4th 595, allow prisoners to show that they may obtain compassionate release if they can show that they are unable to receive or benefit from COVID-19 vaccine or that they remain vulnerable to severe infection, notwithstanding vaccine. However, while defendant was not given opportunity to make such showing in Dist. Ct., defendant failed to explain to Court of Appeals why he could not benefit from COVID-19 vaccine. As such, availability of COVID-19 vaccine made it impossible for defendant to show that risk of contracting COVID-19 was extraordinary and compelling reason for immediate release as required under section 3582(c)(1)(A).

People v. Kruel

Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Rape Shield Statute
Citation
Case Number: 
2022 IL App (1st) 200721
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, June 15, 2022
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
3d Div./Cook Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
GORDON

Defendant was charged with one count of aggravated battery and two counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault. He was convicted of aggravated battery and acquitted on the other two counts. Defendant argued on appeal that the trial court erred when it excluded evidence pursuant to the Rape Shield Statute, 725 ILCS 5/115-7(a). The appellate court affirmed, finding that the DNA evidence at issue was not relevant to the charges against defendant. (McBRIDE and BURKE, concurring)

Westray v. Brookhart

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Criminal Court
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 20-3260
Decision Date: 
June 10, 2022
Federal District: 
S.D. Ill.
Holding: 
Affirmed

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition that challenged his life sentence on murder charge on grounds that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present additional mitigation evidence regarding his abusive childhood. Record showed that defendant was originally given death penalty, which was subsequently commuted to life sentence. As such, defendant was required to show under prejudice prong of Strickland that he would have received sentence of less that life imprisonment but for his counsel’s ineffectiveness.. Defendant failed to do this, where: (1) co-defendant, who had cooperated with government and had significantly less extensive criminal history, received life sentence; (2) government presented overwhelming evidence in aggravation, including defendant’s extensive criminal history; and (3) defendant’s proposed mitigation evidence was redundant to evidence contained in record.

People v. Sosani

Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Guilty Plea
Citation
Case Number: 
2022 IL App (1st) 210027
Decision Date: 
Friday, June 10, 2022
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
5th Div./Cook Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
DELORT

Defendant appealed from the circuit court’s denial of his petition seeking to vacate guilty pleas entered in two separate criminal cases pursuant to section 2-1401 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellate court noted the case presented an “unusual” procedural posture as plaintiff abandoned all arguments made in the circuit court and instead focused on the new section 2-1401(c-5) pertaining to guilty pleas carrying potential consequences under federal immigration law. However, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s orders on the basis that plaintiff’s petitions were time-barred and, as a result, did not apply section c-5. (HOFFMAN and CUNNINGHAM, concurring)

People v. Joyner

Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Pre-Sentence Custody Credit
Citation
Case Number: 
2022 IL App (2d) 210045
Decision Date: 
Thursday, June 9, 2022
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Kane Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
JORGENSEN

Defendant appealed from circuit court order reducing the amount of his pre-sentence custody credit arguing that the State lacked the authority to seek a correction. The appellate court affirmed based on a recent amendment to SCR 472 that authorized “any party” to claim an error in the calculation of pre-sentence custody credit. (ZENOFF and BRENNAN, concurring)

People v. Montanez

Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Post-Conviction Hearing Act
Citation
Case Number: 
2022 IL App (1st) 191930
Decision Date: 
Thursday, June 9, 2022
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
4th Div./Cook Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
LAMPKIN

Defendant appealed from the circuit court’s denial of his motion for leave to file a successive post-conviction petition arguing that the State improperly participated in discussions at the leave-to-file stage and that he satisfied the cause and prejudice test on two Brady claims. Defendant also argued that his mandatory natural life sentence violated Miller and the proportionate penalties clause. The appellate court affirmed, finding defendant’s leave to file a successive post-conviction petition was properly denied. (MARTIN, concurring and ROCHFORD, specially concurring.)