Criminal Law

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to reconsider his request for sentence reduction under 18 USC section 3582(c)(2), where basis of motion was contention that Dist. Ct. had erred in failing to grant original motion for reduction of sentence that was based on existence of retroactive changes to offense levels for most crack cocaine offenses under Fair Sentencing Act. Defendant’s motion for reconsideration was untimely, since it was filed two days after applicable 14-day period for filing said motions. As such, defendant’s motion was essentially second request for reduction of sentence that Dist. Ct. had no choice but to deny, since defendant had only one chance per retroactive amendment to seek reduction of his sentence.

Record contained sufficient evidence to support defendant’s conviction on charge of persuading person under 18 to engage in criminal sexual activity, where defendant had posted ad on craigslist entitled “sell your teenage daughter,” and where defendant subsequently engaged in series of emails with undercover agent posing as father of teenage daughter who was willing to engage in sex. Ct. rejected defendant’s claim that conviction required proof that he actually contacted teenage girl and further found that conviction could be supported by evidence that defendant had engaged in adult-to-adult communications that were designed to persuade minor to commit forbidden sexual acts. Ct. further held that Dist. Ct. erred in admitting evidence of uncharged conduct that defendant had simultaneously exchanged emails with same undercover agent posing as different teenage girl, since Dist. Ct. had failed to weigh probative value of said evidence prior to its admission. However, any error was harmless where proper weighing process would have resulted in admission of said evidence to rebut defendant’s claim of innocent intent.

Dist. Ct. erred in granting portion of defendant’s habeas petition that challenged his murder conviction, where petition alleged that prosecutor’s use of 13 out of 16 challenges to excuse prospective black jurors was based on race, where only three blacks were eventually placed on jury. Record showed that defendant procedurally defaulted said issue by failing to contemporaneously object to govt.’s use of its peremptory challenges, and Ill. Supreme Court’s finding that defendant had waived any peremptory challenge issue constituted independent and adequate state law ground to resolve said issue. Moreover, although Batson decision had not been issued at time of defendant’s trial, said default could not be excused, where defendant could have raised any error with respect to govt.’s use of its peremptory challenges based on existing law. (Dissent filed.)