Criminal Law

People v. Brown-Engel

People v. Brown-Engel
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Sexual Abuse
Citation
Case Number: 
2018 IL App (3d) 160368
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, December 4, 2018
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
Rock Island Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
CARTER

Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of aggravated criminal sexual abuse of his female cousin, who was under age 13.  Court did not abuse its discretion in allowing admission of victim's testimony as to prior sexual misconduct between her and Defendant. Although this evidence was inadmissible to establish Defendant's propensity under Section 115-7.3 of Code of Criminal Procedure, because it is not an enumerated offense, it was admissible to establish Defendant's intent and absence of an innocent state pursuant to Illinois Rule of Evidence 404. No ineffective assistance of counsel in defense counsel failing to object to admission of this other bad acts evidence. (McDADE and SCHMIDT, concurring.)

U.S. v. Taylor

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Taylor
Criminal Court
Sentencing
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 18-1545
Decision Date: 
December 3, 2018
Federal District: 
S.D. Ind., New Albany Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 135-month term of incarceration on possession of child pornography charge, where: (1) defendant had pleaded guilty to said charge, where plea agreement contemplated offense level at 31 based on two-level reduction for defendant not having distributed said pornography; (2) probation officer prepared presentence report that indicated that defendant was not entitled to said reduction; and (3) both parties made no objection to presentence report, and Dist. Ct. thereafter adopted said report. Govt. did not breach agreement by advocating for within Guidelines sentence based on offense level accepted by Dist. Ct., and agreement otherwise provided that Dist. Ct. was not bound by calculation of offense level made by parties. Moreover, defendant was free to argue for sentence below range chosen by Dist. Ct. Also, defendant’s stipulations in agreement waived his right to appeal imposition of two enhancements contained in plea agreement.

U.S. v. Sanders

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Sanders
Criminal Court
Sentencing
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 18-2165
Decision Date: 
December 3, 2018
Federal District: 
S.D. Ill.
Holding: 
Affirmed

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 10-year mandatory minimum sentence on drug offense pursuant to recidivist enhancement provision set forth in 21 USC section 841(b)(1)(B), based upon defendant’s 1996 California felony drug offense, even though California reclassified her California offense from felony to misdemeanor at some point after defendant had entered guilty plea, but before date of defendant’s sentencing hearing. Terms of section 841 applied, since defendant’s California conviction was “final” at time she committed instant offense, and reclassification did nothing to alter historical fact that defendant’s conviction had become final. Ct. also rejected defendant’s claim that applying instant enhancement under this record would violate 5th Amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses.

People v. Lesley

People v. Lesley
Illinois Supreme Court
Criminal Court
Postconviction Petitions
Citation
Case Number: 
2018 IL 122100
Decision Date: 
Thursday, November 29, 2018
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
LaSalle Co.
Holding: 
Appellate court reversed; remanded.
Justice: 
NEVILLE

Defendant filed pro se postconviction petition. At 3rd-stage evidentiary hearing, when Defendant appeared pro se, court's denied his petition. Defendant was offered a choice of proceeding with appointed counsel, retaining counsel, or proceeding pro se on several occasions. His failure to work with appointed counsel and failure to procure private counsel manifested his choice to proceed pro se. Defendant was repeatedly informed that his 2nd appointed counsel would be his last. Defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appointed counsel. Court did not err by requiring Defendant to represent himself.(KARMEIER, THOMAS, KILBRIDE, GARMAN, BURKE, and THEIS, concurring.)

People v. Johnson

People v. Johnson
Illinois Supreme Court
Criminal Court
Postconviction Petitions
Citation
Case Number: 
2018 IL 122227
Decision Date: 
Thursday, November 29, 2018
District: 
4th Dist.
Division/County: 
Champaign Co.
Holding: 
Appellate court reversed; circuit court reversed; remanded.
Justice: 
BURKE

A defendant who retains a private attorney at first stage of postconviction proceedings under Pos-Conviction Hearing Act is entitled to a reasonable level of assistance of counsel. (KARMEIER, THOMAS, KILBRIDE, GARMAN, THEIS, and NEVILLE, concurring.)

People v. Easton

People v. Easton
Illinois Supreme Court
Criminal Court
Guilty Pleas
Citation
Case Number: 
2018 IL 122187
Decision Date: 
Thursday, November 29, 2018
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Kendall Co.
Holding: 
Appellate court reversed; circuit court court vacated; remanded.
Justice: 
NEVILLE

Defendant pled guilty to aggravated unlawful possession of a stolen motor vehicle, unlawful possession of a stolen motor vehicle, and 4 counts of unlawful use of a credit card. Defendant's postplea proceedings in circuit court were completed more than a year before Rule 604(d) was amended. Thus, amended Rule 604(d) did not apply. To comply with Rule 604(d), defense counsel must certify that he or she consulted with Defendant as to both types of error: in imposition of sentence and the entry of plea of guilty. As counsel's certificate did not comply with Rule 604(d), case is remanded for new postplea proceedings, including filing of a new Rule 604(d) certificate, and opportunity to file a new motion to withdraw guilty plea and/or reconsider the sentence; and a new motion hearing.(KARMEIER, THOMAS, KILBRIDE, GARMAN, BURKE, and THEIS, concurring.)

U.S. v. Hatch

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Hatch
Criminal Court
Sentencing
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 18-1282
Decision Date: 
November 29, 2018
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 55-month term of imprisonment on firearm trafficking charge, even though said sentence was beyond applicable 30-to-37-month guideline range. Dist. Ct. reasoned that rise in gun violence in Chicago meant that Sentencing Guidelines did not adequately reflect seriousness of defendant’s offense or sufficiently deter others from firearm trafficking, and Dist. Ct. could properly depart from Guidelines based on instant locality-specific factor. Ct. further noted that Dist. Ct. otherwise appropriately applied section 3553(a) factors.

People v. Rodriguez-Palomino

People v. Rodriguez-Palomino
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Sexual Assault
Citation
Case Number: 
2018 IL App (2d) 160361
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, November 28, 2018
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Lake Co.
Holding: 
Appeal dismissed.
Justice: 
BURKE

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of 3 counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child and 9 counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse. Defendant was sentenced on April 15, 2016, and filed his notice of appeal on May 17, 2016, which was one day late. As it was not timely filed, appellate court lacks jurisdiction, and appeal is dismissed. (HUDSON and BIRKETT, concurring.)

People v. Aikens

Illinois Supreme Court PLAs
People v. Aikens
Criminal Court
Sentencing
Citation
PLA issue Date: 
November 28, 2018
Docket Number: 
No. 121558
District: 
1st Dist.

This case presents question as to whether trial court’s imposition of 40-year statutorily mandated minimum sentence on charge of attempt murder of peace officer while personally discharging firearm was constitutional under either 8th Amendment or under disproportionate penalties clause of Ill. Constitution, where defendant was 17 years old at time of offense. Appellate Court, in reversing trial court, found that while sentence was constitutional under 8th Amendment, it was unconstitutional under disproportionate penalties clause as applied to defendant because of his age and because of its perception that said sentence “shock[ed] our evolving standard of moral decency,” where defendant had no prior criminal history and held potential for rehabilitation.

People v. Brown

Illinois Supreme Court PLAs
People v. Brown
Criminal Court
One-Act-One-Crime Doctrine
Citation
PLA issue Date: 
November 28, 2018
Docket Number: 
Nos. 123901 and 123902 Cons.
District: 
1st Dist.

This case presents question as to whether defendants’ convictions for robbery and aggravated battery of senior citizen violated one-act-one-crime doctrine, where record showed in both cases that defendant’s convictions arose out of single act of punching victim. Appellate Court, in vacating defendants’ aggravated battery of senior citizen conviction, found that said conviction violated said doctrine, since there was no other evidence of other use of force, threat of force, or verbal threat to victim. In its petitions for leave to appeal, State argued that there is no violation of one-act-one-crime doctrine, where record showed existence of two physical acts, i.e. punching victim that could support both convictions and taking victim’s money that could only support robbery conviction.