Criminal Law

People v. Laguna

People v. Laguna
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Expungement
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (2d) 131145
Decision Date: 
Friday, August 22, 2014
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Du Page Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
ZENOFF
Court properly denied Defendant's petition to expunge convictions of unlawful possession of stolen motor vehicle and aggravated fleeing or attempting to elude police officer and aggravated DUI. Defendant was granted gubernatorial pardon. Court specifically discussed strength of case, finding evidence overwhelming and that Defendant's actions were serious. Court was within its discretion to find that serious nature of crimes and public interest in retaining records outweighed Defendant's age and good record after release from prison. It was within court's discretion to discount other immigration consequences, given evidence of transferable job skills.(SCHOSTOK and HUDSON, concurring.)

U.S. v. Sullivan

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Sullivan
Criminal Court
Sentencing
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 12-3631 & 12-3670 Cons.
Decision Date: 
August 28, 2014
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 168-month term of incarceration on wire fraud charge arising out of scheme to induce victims to refinance their homes to provide money for remodeling projects that defendant and others did not complete. Dist. Ct. could properly find that loss arising out of scheme totaled $756,924.90 after subtracting per job labor and material costs at $15,000, and defendant offered only unsubstantiated claims that he incurred more substantial costs to refute govt.’s calculation of loss. Moreover, Dist. Ct. could properly impose vulnerable victim and sophisticated means enhancements where: (1) certain victims testified as to being on disability income when approached by defendant and record showed that defendant targeted his victims; and (2) defendant falsified construction contracts and lied to homeowners while coordinating various individuals including subcontractors and mortgage brokers to fool said homeowners.

U.S. v. Chapman

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Chapman
Criminal Court
Evidence
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 12-1415
Decision Date: 
August 28, 2014
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Vacated and remanded
In prosecution on drug distribution and unlawful possession of firearms charges, Dist. Ct. erred in admitting under Rule 404(b)(1) details of defendant’s prior heroin-trafficking conviction, even though govt. argued that said evidence was relevant as to issue of defendant’s knowledge of drugs and intent to commit charged offenses, since relevance of defendant’s prior conviction depended on forbidden propensity evidence and its probative value was substantially outweighed by risk of unfair prejudice, where defendant’s only defense was that he did not possess either drugs or firearm. Dist. Ct. also erred in precluding defendant from testifying that he pleaded guilty to all six prior felony convictions that had been admitted into evidence on issue of defendant’s credibility, where Dist. Ct. was under misimpression that Rule 609 categorically precluded defendant from admitting proposed evidence.

People v. Moore

People v. Moore
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Burglary
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (1st) 112592
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 3d Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed as modified and remanded.
Justice: 
HYMAN
(Modified upon denial of rehearing 8/27/14.) Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of residential burglary. Trial evidence failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt one of the elements of residential burglary: that owner or resident intended to reside at building at time of burglary. Although court failed to properly admonish Defendant of charges and sentencing range prior to his waiver of counsel, motion which Defendant presented pro se was without merit and thus Defendant was not prejudiced by court's failure to comply with Rule 401 in admonishments. (NEVILLE and PUCINSKI, concurring.)

U.S. v. Johnson

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Johnson
Criminal Court
Sentencing
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 13-3649
Decision Date: 
August 27, 2014
Federal District: 
C.D. Ill.
Holding: 
Affirmed and remanded
Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 108-month term of incarceration on unlawful possession of firearm charge based in part on four-level enhancement under section 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) of USSG for possessing firearm on another’s property in connection with another offense. Govt. established by preponderance of evidence that defendant possessed firearm in connection with another offense, i.e., Illinois charge of aggravated unlawful use of weapon, when defendant pointed gun at victim while in victim’s home, so as to establish instant enhancement. However, remand was required where instant written judgment contained conditions of supervised release that were not orally mentioned during sentencing hearing. Dist. Ct., though, may modify conditions of supervised release at any time after sentencing hearing, and Dist. Ct. may include said additional conditions on remand if said conditions are clear and appropriate in relation to defendant.

Smith v. Brown

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Smith v. Brown
Criminal Court
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 12-3731
Decision Date: 
August 26, 2014
Federal District: 
N.D. Ind., S. Bend Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant-prisoner’s habeas petition challenging his Indiana conviction on attempted murder charge arising out of defendant’s confrontation with another prisoner, even though defendant argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to mount any sort of defense on his behalf. While record established that counsel presented “poor defense” of defendant by only cross-examining victim, failing to cross-examine certain eye-witnesses to offense, and making only perfunctory closing argument, presumption of error under Cronic, 466 U.S. 668, did not apply, since defense counsel subjected state’s case to some meaningful adversarial testing during counsel’s opening statement and cross-examination of victim. Moreover, any error was harmless, where weight of state’s evidence was overwhelming, since three eye-witnesses stated that defendant had approached victim from behind and started to stab victim with half-scissors under circumstances where other half of scissors was found in defendant’s pocket.

The U.S. Supreme Court Says ‘No’ to Cell-Phone Searches Incident to Arrest

By David J. Robinson
September
2014
Article
, Page 438
The Riley court established a rare bright-line rule under the Fourth Amendment when it declared that data searches of cell phones - regardless of type - are unlawful incident to arrest.

Public Act 98-1012

Topic: 
Bail bonds and electronic surveillance
(Wheeler, R-Crystal Lake; Althoff, R-Crystal Lake) amends the current statute on bail bonds and electronic surveillance. Under current law, if a defendant is charged with a violation of an order or protection, the court at the defendant’s bail bond hearing may order the respondent to undergo a risk-assessment evaluation and use electronic surveillance. The court may order that the person, as a condition of bail, to be placed under electronic surveillance. Public Act 98-1012 expands this statute to include a number of other offenses, including domestic battery, aggravated domestic battery, kidnapping, aggravated kidnaping, unlawful restraint, aggravated unlawful restraint, stalking, aggravated stalking, cyberstalking, harassment by telephone, harassment through electronic communications, or an attempt to commit first degree murder committed against an intimate partner regardless whether an order of protection has been issued against the person. Requires the court to document in the record its reasons for making a determination whether to order the respondent to undergo a risk-assessment evaluation or to be placed under electronic surveillance. Requires the defendant to pay for the cost of the risk-assessment and the electronic surveillance. Effective Jan. 1, 2015.
View Full Text of Legislation

Carroll v. Daugherty

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Carroll v. Daugherty
Criminal Court
Supervised Release
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 12-3332
Decision Date: 
August 25, 2014
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant-prisoner’s habeas petition that had challenged any imposition of 3-year term of supervised release, where trial court had failed to mention imposition of term of supervised release during defendant’s sentencing hearing. Illinois statute makes supervised release mandatory for defendant’s charged offense, such that omission of term of supervised release in original judgment did not make unlawful any imposition of 3-year term of supervised release as part of defendant’s sentence. As such, Dist. Ct. did not err in finding that defendant was required to serve both 26-year sentence mentioned in judgment, as well as 3-year term of supervised release.