Criminal Law

People v. Mitchell

People v. Mitchell
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Sentencing
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (1st) 120080
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, April 9, 2014
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 3d Div.
Holding: 
Sentence vacated; remanded.
Justice: 
HYMAN
Court erred in not holding new sentencing hearing after Defendant's sentence was vacated and case was remanded for resentencing. Court should have held hearing to consider evidence from trial, new presentence investigation reports, and other documents and factors listed in Section 5-4-1(a), and should have allowed Defendant to make a statement on his own behalf. (NEVILLE and PUCINSKI, concurring.)

U.S. v. May

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. May
Criminal Court
Sentencing
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 13-2799
Decision Date: 
April 8, 2014
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 10-year term of incarceration on drug conspiracy charge, where said sentence was based in part on enhancement under section 3B1.1 of USSG for defendant’s aggravated role in charged offense, and where Dist. Ct. refused to apply safety-valve relief. While defendant argued that he and his co-conspirator played equal roles in drug conspiracy, record supported Dist. Ct.’s finding that defendant supervised co-conspirator, where defendant set price and quantity of drugs, obtained drugs from his supplier, instructed co-conspirator to oversee drug sales and kept greater percentage of proceeds for himself. Moreover, defendant’s supervisory role precluded Dist. Ct. from applying safety-valve relief.

U.S. v. Donelli

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Donelli
Criminal Court
Sentencing
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 13-2548
Decision Date: 
April 7, 2014
Federal District: 
S.D. Ill.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in imposing 60-month term of incarceration on wire fraud and tax evasion charges, even though defendant argued that Dist. Ct. had failed to address his principal argument in mitigation that his diagnosis of bipolar disorder required lower sentence. Defendant waived instant issue by failing to specifically present it to Dist. Ct. when Dist. Ct. offered to provide further explanation for imposition of instant sentence. Moreover, defendant’s general objection to imposition of above-guideline sentence was insufficient to preserve instant sentencing issue.

U.S. v. Ruelas-Valdovinos

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Ruelas-Valdovinos
Criminal Court
Sentencing
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 12-2685
Decision Date: 
April 7, 2014
Federal District: 
S.D. Ill.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 327-month term of incarceration on drug conspiracy charge arising out of defendant’s supplying of cocaine to his 22 co-conspirators, where said sentence was based in part on three-level upward enhancement for his role as supervisor in conspiracy. While supplying of drugs, by itself, is insufficient to support imposition of instant supervisor enhancement under section 3B1.1 of USSG, record showed that defendant actually helped to manage instant criminal scheme, where defendant made two phone calls that threatened to kill or replace others in conspiracy and provided vehicle to others for purpose of transporting drugs. Record also showed that Dist. Ct. would have imposed same sentence had instant enhancement not applied.

People v. Ross

People v. Ross
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Postconviction Petitions
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (1st) 120089
Decision Date: 
Friday, March 21, 2014
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 5th Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
GORDON
(Court opinion corrected 4/7/14.) Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of being armed habitual criminal. Court properly entered summary dismissal of his pro se postconviction petition at first stage. Affidavit of son, that he placed handgun in car Defendant had been driving, is not newly-discovered evidence that could not have been discovered earlier with due diligence; Defendant was aware of it based on his friend's testimony at trial. The affidavit, which was signed but not notarized, was available during trial and was presented to trial court in posttrial motion, but court would not consider it as it was not notarized. Decision whether to call son at trial was a strategic decision, not ineffective assistance of trial counsel. (McBRIDE and PALMER, concurring.)

People v. Raney

People v. Raney
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Sentencing
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (4th) 130551
Decision Date: 
Friday, April 4, 2014
District: 
4th Dist.
Division/County: 
Piatt Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed in part and remanded in part with directions.
Justice: 
POPE
Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of aggravated battery, domestic battery, unlawful violation of an order of protection, and criminal trespass to a residence. Court properly allowed State to introduce Defendant's prior conviction for felony domestic battery to impeach his testimony, as court appropriately considered that the similarity of the two crimes increased risk of prejudice, and concluded probative value outweighed potential for prejudice. It was error for probation to have attached victim impact statement of son of Defendant's ex-wife to PSI, as conduct mentioned in statement was irrelevant as it was not related to conduct for which Defendant was charged. Although court erred in considering statement, Defendant was not unduly prejudiced, and State did not rely on it in sentencing arguments. Court erred in making no inquiry into Defendant's ineffective-assistance-of counsel claim; remanded for initial Krankel inquiry. (KNECHT and HOLDER WHITE, concurring.)

U.S. v. Vitrano

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Vitrano
Criminal Court
Evidence
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 13-2912
Decision Date: 
April 4, 2014
Federal District: 
E.D. Wisc.
Holding: 
Affirmed
In prosecution on perjury charges stemming from defendant’s efforts to fabricate Wisconsin conviction discharge certificate as part of defendant’s claim that he did not qualify for career offender treatment under Armed Career Criminal Act, Dist. Ct. did not err in admitting two telephone calls that implicated defendant in perjury charges without subjecting to cross-examination technician who pulled said calls from prison records. Preparation of exhibit for trial is not itself testimonial in nature, and thus there was no need to call technician who prepared phone calls as exhibit. Moreover, defendant failed to identify what technician did or said that qualified as testimonial hearsay evidence.

U.S. v. Debenedetto

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Debenedetto
Criminal Court
Competency
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 13-3281
Decision Date: 
April 4, 2014
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Vacated and remanded
In proceeding to determine defendant’s competency to assist counsel in defense of transmitting interstate threats charge, Dist. Ct. erred in entering order under 18 USC section 4241(d)(2)(A) that defendant should be committing for medical treatment, including involuntary medication, for purposes of making defendant able to attain capacity to permit criminal proceedings to go forward. Dist. Ct. failed to provide required explicit findings that established: (1) importance of govt. interest in subjecting defendant to course of medical treatment without making preliminary finding regarding any potential sentence; (2) likelihood that proposed course of treatment would render defendant competent to stand trial and would subject him to deleterious side effects; (3) lack of existence of less intrusive alternatives to proposed involuntary drug treatment; and (4) appropriateness of proposed course of treatment in view of defendant’s diagnosis and personal medical history.

U.S. v. Hargis

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Hargis
Criminal Court
Sentencing
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 12-2153
Decision Date: 
April 3, 2014
Federal District: 
S.D. Ind., Evansville Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to above-guideline, 60-month term of incarceration on charge of use of fire to commit wire fraud, where said sentence was based in part on obstruction of justice and organizer of conspiracy enhancements. Dist. Ct. could properly base sentence on both enhancements where: (1) obstruction of justice enhancement was based on defendant’s testimony at prior change of plea hearing, during which defendant falsely claimed that she attempted to withdraw from conspiracy by instructing arsonist not to set fire to her home; and (2) organizer of conspiracy enhancement was based on fact that defendant hatched idea to burn down her home for insurance proceeds, recruited arsonist to set fire to her home, and attempted to maximize insurance proceeds by filing frivolous lawsuit against insurance company and then lying during deposition in said lawsuit.

People v. Sangster

People v. Sangster
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Closing Argument
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (1st) 113457
Decision Date: 
Monday, March 31, 2014
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 3d Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
HYMAN
(Court opinion corrected 4/1/14.) Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of first degree murder and attempted first degree murder for shootings of two persons. Court properly admitted Defendant's recorded jail telephone conversation, as proper foundation for call was laid under silent witness theory. Court properly admitted two witnesses' prior inconsistent statements as substantive evidence and for impeachment purposes. Surviving shooting victim's identification of Defendant as shooter was properly admitted for impeachment and to show effect on Defendant and his course of conduct. Prosecutor's comments in closing argument regarding truthfulness of gang members was based on evidence, and did not reference excluded evidence.(NEVILLE and MASON, concurring.)