Criminal Law

U.S. v. Barber

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Criminal Court
Evidence
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 18-2803
Decision Date: 
August 27, 2019
Federal District: 
N.D. Ind., S. Bend Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed

In prosecution on firearm charges, Dist. Ct. erred in admitting signed statements from ATF officials representing that firearm store, where theft occurred, was licensed at time when robbery took place, since said statements were testimonial under Crawford, 541 U.S. 36 and went beyond simple authentication of license. Moreover, defendant had no opportunity to cross-examine said officials. However, error was harmless, where store’s owner identified said license and verified its current status. Also, Dist. Ct. properly admitted evidence from defendant’s Facebook account, where evidence contained presence of nickname, date of birth, address and email address and photos linked to defendant, as well as links to defendant’s girlfriend and cell phone, which were sufficient to establish that account belonged to defendant. Too, defendant forfeited issue that his cell phone records should have been suppressed due to police's failure to obtain search warrant prior to gathering cell phone information, where defendant failed to raise issue in pre-trial motion or at trial, and defendant failed to establish good cause for failing to do so. Finally, Dist. Ct. could impose two-level obstruction of justice enhancement, where defendant scratched message to tell witness “think B4 H[e]” testifies, because it conveyed message to reconsider what witness was about to do and then not do it.

People v. Alexander

Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Possession of Weapons
Citation
Case Number: 
2019 IL App (3d) 160709
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, August 27, 2019
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
Peoria Co.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded.
Justice: 
O'BRIEN

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon. Court gave a jury instruction during deliberations which introduced constructive possession as a new theory. Defendant was denied the opportunity to address that theory during closing argument, and was thus deprived of his due process right to a fair trial. (WRIGHT, concurring; CARTER, dissenting.)

People v. Ryburn

Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Postconviction Petitions
Citation
Case Number: 
2019 IL App (4th) 170779
Decision Date: 
Thursday, August 22, 2019
District: 
4th Dist.
Division/County: 
McLean Co.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded.
Justice: 
TURNER

Defendant entered pleas to sexual assault offenses, and was sentenced to aggregate 60 years. Court denied his motion to withdraw his guilty please.  Defendant filed numerous petitions and motions to set aside his guilty pleas. Court erred by dismissing Defendant's amended successive postconviction petition, as Defendant made a substantial showing of cause and prejudice. Trial counsel's alleged failure to inform Defendant of the State's 24-year plea offer was an objective, external factor that prevented him from raising the issue in the initial postconviction petition. Defendant attached a copy of the State's 24-year plea offer, and his affidavit that stated that he learned of this offer only after he filed an ARDC complaint against his trial counsel. (CAVANAGH and HARRIS, concurring.)

Make It Go Away: A Practical and Realistic Guide to Expungement, Sealing, and Other Criminal Record Reforms

By Paul C. Meyers
September
2019
Article
, Page 26
How to respond to client expungement and sealing inquiries in the wake of significant criminal record reforms in Illinois.

Communicating With Clients

September
2019
Article
, Page 13
Communicating with clients through Facebook and texting: pros and cons. 

In re Commitment of Rutherford

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act
Citation
Case Number: 
2019 IL App (2d) 180211
Decision Date: 
Thursday, August 8, 2019
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Du Page Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
McLAREN

Respondent, then age 16, was adjudicated a delinquent minor for sexual offenses against an 8-year-old girl. At age 20, he violated his parole conditions by committing salient acts against a treatment center employee. Court accepted his stipulation to commitment to the Illinois Department of Human Services and to being a sexually violent person. At age 31, he underwent a statutorily required periodic reexamination. Respondent refused to participate in treatment after 2009, or in his reexamination, and thus he has no evidence to show that he is no longer a sexually violent person.(JORGENSEN and SPENCE, concurring.)

People v. Pellegrini

Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Citation
Case Number: 
2019 IL App (3d) 170827
Decision Date: 
Friday, August 23, 2019
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
Grundy Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
SCHMIDT

Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, and aggravated domestic battery of his wife for forcing his hand into her vagina without her consent, causing bleeding and injury. Court properly dismissed post-conviction petition, at 3rd stage, which alleged ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to present expert testimony as to blackout intoxication. During trial, Defendant argued that victim had consented to the sexual conduct. Defendant failed to show that he was prejudiced by lack of such expert evidence. Court's statement that it is common for judges to hear testimony from witnesses who had consumed alcohol in excess, or observed persons who had, was not error and did not prejudice Defendant nor deny him due process. (LYTTON and McDADE, concurring.) 

People v. Ames

Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Postconviction Petitions
Citation
Case Number: 
2019 IL App (4th) 170569
Decision Date: 
Thursday, August 22, 2019
District: 
4th Dist.
Division/County: 
Sangamon
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
TURNER

After hearing, at which court allowed State to make arguments, court denied Defendant's 2nd motion for leave to file a successive postconviction petition and its supplement. After hearing, during which court allowed State to argue, court denied Defendant's motion to reconsider.  An appellate court may choose for the sake of judicial economy to review a circuit court's denial fo a motion for leave to file a successive postconviction petition when State has been involved. Defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of the cause element, as he could have raised his perjury claim on his initial postconviction petition, and previously raised arguments as to request for DNA testing and his counsel's preventing him from testifying. (HOLDER WHITE was convicted, after jury trial, of and STEIGMANN, concurring.)

People v. Johnson

Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Citation
Case Number: 
2019 IL App (1st) 153204
Decision Date: 
Thursday, July 25, 2019
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 2d Div,
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded.
Justice: 
PUCINSKI

(Court opinion corrected 8/26/19.) Defendant, age 16 at time of incident, was convicted,after jury trial, of 1st degree murder and 3 counts of aggravated battery with a firearm.Court erred in dismissing Defendant's amended successive postconviction petition at the 2nd stage. Defendant established cause and prejudice for his claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present a particular witness at trial. In that witness' affidavit attached to Defendant's successive petition, he stated that he was at the shooting, that Defendant was not a shooter, and that he came forward in 2014, after Defendant filed his direct appeal and initial postconviction petition. Thus, Defendant could not have raised his claim in these earlier proceedings. Witness would have provided exculpatory evidence that would have contradicted 2 other witnesses' biased identification testimony as rival gang members. (HYMAN, specially concurring; MASON, dissenting.)

People v. Pina

Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Delivery of a Controlled Substance
Citation
Case Number: 
2019 IL App (4th) 170614
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, July 17, 2019
District: 
4th Dist.
Division/County: 
Livingston Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
HARRIS

(Court opinion corrected 8/22/19.) Defendant pled guilty to unlawful delivery of a controlled substance and was sentenced to 30 months probation; court later revoked probation and resentenced her to 5 years. Sentence was ot excessive; court explicitly considered many mitigating factors, and considered her rehabilitative potential. Defendant's conduct while on probation, continuously noncompliant with terms of probation, was a proper factor for consideration, as it related to her rehabilitative potential. Defendant violated terms of her original sentence and may not now claim that she received unfair resentencing hearing or that she did not receive benefit of her bargain. (TURNER and CAVANAGH, concurring.)