Criminal Law

People v. Ford

People v. Ford
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Sentencing
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (1st) 130147
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 2d Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed in part and vacated in part; remanded with directions.
Justice: 
PIERCE
(Court opinion corrected 10/8/14.) Defendant was convicted of possessing contraband (dangerous weapon) in a penal institution, and sentenced as Class X offender to 14 years in prison. Although MSR was never mentioned at sentencing hearing, after commitment DOC added three-year MSR term. A term of MSR is part of every qualifying sentence regardless of whether term is mentioned during sentencing or omitted from sentencing order.(SIMON and LIU, concurring.)

People v. Perez

People v. Perez
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Contempt
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (3d) 120978
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
Will Co.
Holding: 
Reversed.
Justice: 
WRIGHT
When traffic court judge took a recess at 11:30 a.m., Respondent, having waited to appear on speeding ticket, exited courtroom and bailiff overheard her say, "I waited all fucking morning and now she takes a break." Bailiff told judge of comment; judge returned to bench and instructed State to prepare and file petition for contempt. Court denied Respondent's request for short continuance to prepare for trial, and held hearing on same day, which raised due process concerns as to adequate notice. Evidence did not prove Respondent intended to embarrass the judge, as statement was not made directly to judge or identify judge by name; and remarks about delay may be protected First Amendment speech. State failed to establish indirect criminal contempt beyond a reasonable doubt. (LYTTON, concurring; HOLDRIDGE, specially concurring.)

People v. Yaworski

People v. Yaworski
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Post-Conviction Petitions
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (2d) 130327
Decision Date: 
Monday, October 6, 2014
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
De Kalb Co.
Holding: 
Vacated and remanded with directions.
Justice: 
JORGENSEN
Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of DUI and driving while license revoked. Defendant was represented by same assistant PD at trial and at hearing on his pro se postconviction petition alleging that trial counsel was incompetent and ineffective counsel at trial. PD labored under conflict of interest in postconviction proceedings, as his own competence was at issue, and thus dismissal of petition must be vacated. Once a pro se postconviction petition has cleared first-stage hurdle, Post-Conviction Hearing Act affords Defendant right to attorney with undivided loyalty who will ascertain basis of his complaints. (McLAREN, concurring; SPENCE, dissenting.)

People v. Thomas

People v. Thomas
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Privilege
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (2d) 121001
Decision Date: 
Friday, September 26, 2014
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Winnebago Co.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded.
Justice: 
BURKE
Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of first-degree murder. Defendant, in his pro se petition and in his appeal from summary dismissal, alleged ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, addressing same underlying subject of confessions of an incarcerated minor to detectives and to police chaplain, and identifying error the ruling excluding chaplain's testimony that minor said to him "I did it."Pro se postconviction petition must be given a liberal construction. Defendant raised gist of a constitutional claim at first stage of postconviction proceedings, in arguing that trial court erred in ruling that minor's confession to chaplain was barred by clergy-penitent privilege. Once chaplain withdrew his objection to testifying, burden shifted to minor to show that disclosure was prohibited by rules of religion, and minor failed to offer such evidence.(SCHOSTOK and BIRKETT, concurring.)

In re Commitment of Walker

In re Commitment of Walker
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (2d) 130372
Decision Date: 
Friday, September 26, 2014
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Lake Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
HUDSON
Respondent was adjudicated a sexually violent person and committed to confinement in a secure facility. No due process violation in hearing, as court took substantial steps to ensure that Respondent understood stipulation as to findings and that Respondent is a sexually violent person; court asked Respondent whether he had gone over stipulation with his attorney and whether he had any questions. Court did not err in refusing to conduct evidentiary hearing on Respondent's motion to withdraw stipulation. Defendant failed to show prejudice in his allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel. (SCHOSTOK and SPENCE, concurring.)

People v. Steele

People v. Steele
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Hearsay
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (1st) 121452
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 3d Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed in part and vacated in part and modified in part; remanded.
Justice: 
HYMAN
During late-night traffic safety check, officer pulled Defendant over for failing to wear seat belt, and asked him to pull to side so officer could write citation. Defendant hit accelerator, ran into officer, and sped off, and was later caught on foot. Officer's medical records showed that he was treated only for elbow and knee abrasions and released the same morning. Court erred in allowing officer's hearsay testimony of his diagnoses. State failed to prove element of great bodily harm beyond a reasonable doubt. Trial court's ruling on hearsay objection may be reviewed de novo when it does not involve fact finding or weighing credibility of witnesses. State failed to present evidence that Defendant was traveling at least 21 mph over speed limit as he fled police, and thus State failed to prove aggravated fleeing. (PUCINSKI and LAVIN, concurring.)

U.S. v. Edwards

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Edwards
Criminal Court
Search and Seizure
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 13-3397
Decision Date: 
October 3, 2014
Federal District: 
W.D. Wisc.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded
In prosecution on unlawful possession of firearm charge, Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendant’s motion to suppress firearm seized from car defendant was driving, where defendant was stopped by police after police had received report from defendant’s girlfriend that defendant had recently stolen her car. While Dist. Ct. found that police lacked reasonable belief that evidence of alleged auto theft would be found in car so as to justify instant warrantless search, Ct. of Appeals found that police could perform instant warrantless search, where it was reasonable that evidence of car’s ownership would be found in car at time police discovered firearm under driver’s seat. Moreover, search fit within automobile exception to prohibition against warrantless searches, where there was probable cause to believe that evidence of crime would be found in car. Fact that defendant told police prior to search that car registration was not in glove compartment did not require different result since police are not required to accept defendant's statement as truth.

People v. Deramus

People v. Deramus
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Closing Argument
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (1st) 130995
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 4th Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
EPSTEIN
Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of delivery of a controlled substance after selling heroin to undercover police officer. Although police officer's prior inconsistent statement was substantively admissible, exclusion of it was harmless, as it was cumulative of his live testimony. Prosecutor's comments in opening statement as to "seedy underbelly" of Chicago or "criminal drug dealing underworld" were not improper, as they were in anticipation of producing evidence that Defendant dealt drugs, and State did produce such evidence. References to Defendant as a "businessman" were proper, as supported by evidence. No prejudice in State remarking that police officer witnesses had come out of retirement to testify, as no express argument made that their retirement made them more credible. (FITZGERALD SMITH and HOWSE, concurring.)

People v. Knox

People v. Knox
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Impeachment
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (1st) 120349
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 3d Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
PUCINSKI
Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of first degree murder and sentenced to 45 years. Sentence fell within permissible statutory range and is presumed proper, and court carefully considered relevant aggravating and mitigating factors. Court properly admitted evidence of Defendant's three prior felony convictions for impeachment purposes, as to his credibility,based on fundamental fairness exception, as convictions were within ten years of time of Defendant's first jury trial. (NEVILLE and MASON, concurring.)

People v. Clayton

People v. Clayton
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Motions to Suppress
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (1st) 130743
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 3d Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
MASON
Court suppressed videotapes of second and third interviews of Defendant (then age 17) by police was charged, after finding that Defendant was in custody at the time of a first interview which was not recorded. Defendant was taken from her home at 11 p.m., without her parents, and transported to police station in unmarked police car, remained at police station for at least 4 1/2 hours without sleep and without a lawyer, was on a list of "suspects" before police went to her home, and police have no notes or records of events during entire time at station. Court's finding that Defendant was in custody, per Section 103-2.1(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure, during unrecorded first interview, was not against manifest weight of evidence. Thus, any statements made after unrecorded interview were presumed inadmissible. As State failed to adduce any evidence sufficient to sustain its burden to prove that later statements were voluntary and reliable, court properly suppressed them. (PUCINSKI and LAVIN, concurring.)