Criminal Law

In prosecution on charge of exporting munitions illegally under 22 USC sections 2778(b)(2) and (c), Dist. Ct. erred in giving jury instruction on definition of “willfulness” that did not require jury to find that defendant knew that articles that he was actually exporting were on list of prohibited items for export. However, error was harmless where: (1) record overwhelmingly showed that defendant had exported certain part for military plane that he knew was embargoed; and (2) issue of defendant’s knowledge of illegality of his conduct was squarely placed with jury.

Dist. Ct. did not err in imposing 76-month, below-Guidelines, term of incarceration on bank robbery charge, even though defendant maintained that Dist. Ct. had failed to seriously consider his argument that more appropriate sentence of time served (i.e., 24 months) with community-based drug treatment was more appropriate sentence. While Dist. Ct. did not review on record extensive evidence regarding drug-treatment programs submitted by defendant in support of his sentence recommendation, Dist. Ct. provided sufficient explanation for rationale of instant sentence, where Dist. Ct. indicated that he had considered “significant focus” of defendant’s evidence submissions, which led to decision to impose below-Guidelines sentence. Moreover, Dist. Ct. was entitled to find that need for retribution and to incapacitate defendant required longer term of incarceration than what defendant had recommended.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant’s habeas petition challenging his guilty plea to sexual assault charge, where defendant alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for erroneously advising him that his prior aggravated battery conviction was “serious felony” under Wisc. law so as to make him eligible for mandatory life sentence for instant sexual assault charge. Record showed that counsel’s performance was unconstitutionally ineffective, where defendant’s prior aggravated battery conviction did not qualify as “serious felony,” and Dist. Ct. could properly accept defendant’s unrebutted testimony that he would not have entered into guilty plea had he been given accurate advice about status of his prior aggravated battery conviction. Fact that defendant’s trial counsel did not testify at habeas hearing did not require different result, even though Wisc. law required trial counsel to testify at said hearing had hearing been held in Wisc. state court.