Criminal Law

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 235-month term of incarceration on wire fraud charge that concerned long-term scheme by defendant to embezzle approximately $53 million from City of Dixon, Illinois while defendant was its Comptroller. While defendant argued that she deserved lower sentence due to fact that she had provided extraordinary assistance to officials in returning $10 million in assets to City, and due to fact that she would 77 years old when released from prison under current sentence, Dist. Ct. could impose instant sentence where: (1) defendant had initially been less candid about size and time length of embezzlement scheme; (2) citizens of Dixon had been psychologically harmed due to lack of public funds for extensive period of time; (3) defendant’s sentence was within her life expectancy; and (4) Dist. Ct. could properly find that longer sentence was required due to need for deterrence.

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition challenging his murder conviction on ground that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file discovery motion prior to trial and for failing to know until after witness’ testimony that witness had failed to tell grand jury that defendant was at murder scene. While trial counsel’s failure to file discovery motion fell below prevailing professional norms, defendant failed to establish reasonable probability that result of his trial would have been different but for counsel’s error where: (1) trial counsel entered into stipulation that witness did not tell grand jury that defendant was present at scene of crime or had urged another to shoot victim; (2) witness’ omitted grand jury testimony had no more probative value than stipulation that was presented at trial; and (3) other testimony had implicated defendant in murder.

Ct. of Appeals raised sua sponte issue as to whether it had jurisdiction over defendant’s appeal of denial of his section 2254 habeas petition that challenged decision by state prison disciplinary board to impose loss of 30 days good-time credits in disciplinary proceedings, where as here, defendant failed to obtain certificate of appealability prior to filing notice of appeal. Certificate of appealability requirement set forth in section 2253(c)(1)(A) does not apply to instant appeal since instant detention complained of did not arise out of process issued by State court.