Criminal Law

House Bill 689

Topic: 
Seizure and Forfeiture Reporting Act

(Guzzardi, D-Chicago) provides that the Act applies to any law enforcement agency that seizes property alleged to have been used in or derived from the commission of a criminal offense. Provides that every law enforcement agency that seizes property shall report specified information on a monthly basis. Changes most forfeiture distributions from law enforcement agencies to the Asset Forfeiture Proceeds Fund to be administered by the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. House Bill 689 was just introduced. 

View Full Text of Legislation

Senate Bill 9

Topic: 
Business Opportunity Tax Act

(Hutchinson, D-Chicago Heights) creates the Business Opportunity Tax that imposes a tax on all entities that issue a Form W-2 or a Form 1099 to a resident of Illinois. It imposes a sliding scale of taxation based on the employer’s total Illinois payroll as follows. (1) if the taxpayer’s total Illinois payroll for the taxable year is less than $100,000, then the annual tax is $225; (2) if the taxpayer’s total Illinois payroll for the taxable year is $100,000 or more but less than $250,000, then the annual tax is $750; (3) if the taxpayer’s total Illinois payroll for the taxable year is $250,000 or more but less than $500,000, then the annual tax is $3,750; (4) if the taxpayer’s total Illinois payroll for the taxable year is $500,000 or more but less than $1,500,000, then the annual tax is $7,500; and (5) if the taxpayer’s total Illinois payroll for the taxable year is $1,500,000 or more, then the annual tax is $15,000.

The following are exempt from taxation under this Act: (1) governmental employers described in Section 707 of the Illinois Income Tax Act; and (2) not-for-profit corporations that are exempt from taxation under Sections 501(c) or 501(d) of the Internal Revenue Code or organized under the General Not For Profit Corporation Act of 1986. Senate Amendment No. 2 becomes the bill and was just filed. It is part of the “grand bargain” being attempted by Senate leaders.

 

View Full Text of Legislation

People v. Malone

People v. Malone
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Postconviction Petitions
Citation
Case Number: 
2017 IL App (3d) 140165
Decision Date: 
Monday, January 23, 2017
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
Peoria Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
HOLDRIDGE

Defendant filed pro se postconviction petition, and State filed motion to dismiss, arguing no issues in petition had merit. Postconviction counsel did not amend petition nor add any affidavits or supporting documents, but filed compliant Rule 651(c) certificate, giving rise to presumption that counsel complied with the rule and provided reasonable assistance. Defendant failed to rebut that presumption. Counsel was not compelled to withdraw when allegations of petition are without merit and frivolous.O'BRIEN and LYTTON, concurring.)

People v. Johnson

People v. Johnson
Illinois Supreme Court
Criminal Court
Post-Conviction Petitions
Citation
Case Number: 
2017 IL 120310
Decision Date: 
Friday, January 20, 2017
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Winnebago Co.
Holding: 
Appellate court affirmed.
Justice: 
FREEMAN

Court properly dismissed pro se postconviction petition as untimely, and properly found that late filing was result of Defendant's culpable negligence. Section 122-1(c) of Post-Conviction Hearing Act provides that a postconviction petition must be filed within 6 months of date for filing a petition for certiorari or a petition for leave to appeal. Six-month time period to file postconviction petition started to run after expiration of the 35 days in which Defendant had to file a petition for leave to appeal, which was 35 days after appellate court's issuance of Rule 23 order. Defendant's reliance on fellow inmate and "freelance paralegal" (who Defendant knew was not a licensed attorney) is insufficient to show that delay was not due to his culpable negligence). (KARMEIER, THOMAS, KILBRIDE, GARMAN, BURKE, and THEIS, concurring.)

U.S. v. Bloom

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Bloom
Criminal Court
Wire Fraud
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 15-1445
Decision Date: 
January 19, 2017
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed

Record contained sufficient evidence to support defendant’s conviction on wire fraud and investment advisor fraud arising out of misrepresentations defendant made to customers regarding management of their money in defendant’s company that eventually resulted in $600 million loss. Record contained extensive evidence regarding defendant’s actual use of customer’s funds that diverged from defendant’s representations made to his customers with respect to safety of customer’s principal, use of segregated accounts and sources of customers’ interest payments. Defendant also improperly encouraged customers to make deposits at time when defendant knew that his company was on verge of financial collapse. Ct. rejected defendant’s claim that prosecutor committed misconduct by misleading jury with respect to innocent nature of his conduct, since prosecutor’s statements constituted reasonable inferences about evidence. Also, Dist. Ct. did not err in admitting out-of-court statements from various employees of defendant’s company, where defendant’s counsel agreed to admit some statements as business records and other statements under co-conspirator exception to hearsay rule.

People v. West

People v. West
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Weapons
Citation
Case Number: 
2017 IL App (1st) 143632
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, January 17, 2017
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 2d Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
MASON

Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of armed habitual criminal (AHC), aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (AUUW), and unlawful use of a weapon by a felon. AHC statute is not facially unconstitutional as violative of due process. Court adequately admonished Defendant that by signing jury waiver form and tendering it to court, he would be waiving jury trial and that the court, and not a jury, would hear the evidence. That court did not ask whether his waiver was product of any promise or threat is an insufficient basis to undermine his otherwise valid waiver. Defendant's convictions for AHC and AUUW are both based on Defendant's possession of the same loaded handgun. Thus the less serious conviction of AUUW must be vacated, as they violate one-act, one-crime rule as they arose out of same physical act. (HYMAN and NEVILLE, concurring.)

U.S. v. Winfield

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Winfield
Criminal Court
Sentencing
Citation
Case Number: 
Nos. 16-1047 & 16-1048 Cons.
Decision Date: 
January 18, 2017
Federal District: 
W.D. Wisc.
Holding: 
Affirmed

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 55-month term of incarceration on drug distribution charge, even though Dist. Ct. imposed two-level enhancement based on finding that defendant had maintained premises for purposes of manufacturing or distributing controlled substance. While defendant argued that instant enhancement was improper because his apartment, where drugs were found, did not have drug dealing as primary purpose, Dist. Ct. could properly impose said enhancement, where: (1) informant made four purchases of drugs at defendant’s apartment and spotted additional charges and drug paraphernalia during each transaction; and (2) record showed that at time of his arrest, defendant lived primarily off proceeds from drug sales.

House Bill 280

Topic: 
Domestic violence

(Moylan, D-Des Plaines) allows a petition for an order of protection to be filed by the State's Attorney on behalf of a person who has been abused by a family or household member. The court may, on its own motion, on behalf of a person who has been abused by a family or household member issue an order of protection. Lengthens the duration of plenary order of protection in a criminal case to no longer than 10 years after sentence completion (rather than two years). House Bill 280 has just been introduced. 

View Full Text of Legislation

House Bill 221

Topic: 
Illinois Vehicle Code

(Gordon-Booth, D-Peoria) changes current law for reporting of court supervision for a serious traffic violation under the Code or a similar provision in a local ordinance. Currently, a report of a disposition of court supervision for a serious traffic violation committed by a person under 21 years of age must be sent to the Secretary of State’s Office. This bill requires a reporting for all drivers regardless of their age. The second change affects the time for reporting to the Secretary of State a disposition of court supervision for any traffic violation (with some exceptions) under the Code. This bill requires immediate reporting instead of forwarding within five days after disposition. House Bill 221 has just been introduced. 

View Full Text of Legislation

U.S. v. Syms

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Syms
Criminal Court
Sentencing
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 15-3067
Decision Date: 
January 17, 2017
Federal District: 
S.D. Ill.
Holding: 
Affirmed

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 151-month term of incarceration on drug conspiracy charge, which carried 120-month mandatory minimum sentence. Ct. rejected defendant’s argument that instant mandatory minimum sentence violated separation of powers doctrine by granting prosecutors sole discretion in deciding whether to pursue charges that carry mandatory minimum sentences. Moreover, defendant waived any argument regarding propriety of Dist. Ct.’s finding, as relevant conduct, that defendant had been involved in distributing 61.8 kilograms of cocaine, where defendant affirmatively withdrew his objections to similar finding in presentence report. Also, defendant did not qualify for safety-valve provision contained in section 5C1.2 of Sentencing Guidelines, where Dist. Ct. found that defendant was manager/supervisor of drug conspiracy, and where defendant failed to challenge said finding in Dist. Ct.