Criminal Law

People v. Goad

People v. Goad
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Indictment
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL App (4th) 120604
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
District: 
4th Dist.
Division/County: 
Livingston Co.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded.
Justice: 
STEIGMANN
State filed charges of unlawful possession of a hypodermic needle 18 months after incidents. Defendant must show actual and substantial prejudice as a result of preindictment delay. Assertions as to possibility of prejudice, or personal inconvenience, are insufficient grounds for dismissal due to unreasonable preindictment delay. (KNECHT and TURNER, concurring.)

People v. Pinkston

People v. Pinkston
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Postconviction Petitions
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL App (4th) 111147
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
District: 
4th Dist
Division/County: 
McLean Co.
Holding: 
Remanded with directions.
Justice: 
KNECHT
Trial court has inherent authority to order discovery in postconviction proceedings after hearing, for good cause shown. Limited remand is allowable to allow trial court to properly exercise its discretion on Defendant's discovery request. (STEIGMANN and HOLDER WHITE, concurring.)

U.S. v. Tucker

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Tucker
Criminal Court
Prosecutorial Misconduct
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 12-1281
Decision Date: 
April 30, 2013
Federal District: 
E.D. Wisc.
Holding: 
Affirmed
In prosecution on drug conspiracy charge, defendant was not denied fair trial even though prosecutor improperly stated during closing argument that: (1) nine of defendant’s co-conspirators, who testified during trial, gave prior consistent statements, where no such statements were in record; and (2) Dist. Ct. played some role in vouching for plea agreements of said co-conspirators. Neither statement warranted reversal of defendant’s conviction under plain error standard since: (1) plain error standard requires obvious showing that mistrial was necessary; (2) defendant failed to establish that either statement prevented jury from evaluating evidence in fair manner; and (3) record contained overwhelming evidence of defendant’s participation in scheme to sell and distribute large quantity of drugs.

U.S. v. Tovar-Pina

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Tovar-Pina
Criminal Court
Sentencing
Citation
Case Number: 
Nos. 12-1964 et al. cons.
Decision Date: 
April 29, 2013
Federal District: 
C.D. Ill.
Holding: 
Vacated and remanded
Dist. Ct. erred in sentencing defendant to 84-month term of incarceration, where Dist. Ct. based sentence on two 30-month consecutive sentences for illegal re-entry and bank fraud charges, as well as consecutive 24-month term of incarceration for violation of defendant’s supervised release. Dist. Ct. erred when it failed to determine single combined offense for illegal re-entry and bank fraud charges, where, as here, Dist. Ct. imposed sentence for both charges at same consolidated proceeding. Moreover, appropriate sentencing guideline range was concurrent 30-to 37 month term of incarceration for illegal re-entry and bank fraud charges instead of consecutive 30-month terms of incarceration for each charge.

Senate Bill 1528

Topic: 
Sentencing hearings
(Rose, R-Mahomet; Moylan, D-Des Plaines) requires the State’s Attorney to inform the victim of (1) the victim's right to make a victim impact statement at the sentencing hearing; and (2) if a presentence report is to be prepared, the right of the victim's spouse, guardian, parent, grandparent and other immediate family and household to submit information to the preparer of the presentence report about the effect the offense has had on the victim and the person. (2) In felony cases, the presentence report must set forth information provided by the victim’s spouse, guardian, parent, grandparent, and other immediate family and household members about the effect the offense committed has had on the victim and on the person providing the information; if the victim’s spouse, guardian, parent, grandparent, or other immediate family or household member has provided a written statement, the statement must be attached to the report. Passed the Senate and in the House.
View Full Text of Legislation

People v. Trisby

People v. Trisby
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Search & Seizure
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL App (1st) 112552
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 3d Div.
Holding: 
Reversed.
Justice: 
STERBA
Officer's act of reaching into Defendant's pocket, after making traffic stop, was not pursuant to an investigatory Terry stop, as officer did not conduct a pat-down search for weapons first or indicate that he feared for his safety or for safety of others. Probable cause is not established by officer's observing of a single hand-to-hand transaction involving an unidentified object together with a few furtive hand movements toward a pants pocket. Thus, heroin which officer found in Defendant's pocket should be suppressed. (HYMAN and PIERCE, concurring.)

Kamlager v. Pollard

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Kamlager v. Pollard
Criminal Court
Confession
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 11-3372
Decision Date: 
April 26, 2013
Federal District: 
E.D. Wisc.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition challenging his murder conviction on ground that trial court erred in admitting inculpatory statements made to police after defendant had requested counsel. Record showed that after defendant invoked right to counsel during police questioning he also indicated that he might speak with police detective at later time, and state court could properly have denied defendant’s motion to suppress, even assuming that constitutional violation occurred, where: (1) defendant’s inculpatory statements indicating that he was with victim on day of her death were cumulative to other properly admitted evidence and not crucial to conviction; and (2) remaining evidence against defendant strongly supported guilty verdict. Ct. rejected defendant’s argument that admission of unconstitutionally-obtained statement was per se reversible error.

People v. Wright

People v. Wright
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL App (4th) 110822
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
District: 
4th Dist
Division/County: 
Macon Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
APPLETON
Appellate court's previous decision, on direct appeal, collaterally estops Defendant, who was convicted of first degree murder, from making claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in postconviction petition. Court had held that sentencing hearing was fair despite brief mention of an invalid aggravating factor, thus thus Defendant is collaterally estopped from claiming prejudice from trial counsel's failure to preserve error for review. (STEIGMANN and KNECHT, concurring.)

People v. Kelley

People v. Kelley
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL App (4th) 110874
Decision Date: 
Friday, April 5, 2013
District: 
4th Dist.
Division/County: 
Champaign Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
TURNER
Court properly required Defendant to be shackled during evidentiary hearing, as record showed Defendant's prior courtroom disruption, court court considered all relevant circumstances. Defendant failed to make substantial showing of ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim based on counsel's failure to file a motion to suppress. Decision on filing motion to suppress entitled to great deference as it is a matter of trial strategy. (APPLETON and HARRIS, concurring.)

People v. Harper

People v. Harper
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Postconviction Petitions
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL App (1st) 102181
Decision Date: 
Friday, March 29, 2013
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co.,1st Div.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded.
Justice: 
CUNNINGHAM
Defendant's third successive postconviction petition should advance for third-stage evidentiary hearing, as he made a substantial showing of a claim of actual innocence. Affidavits and transcripts could be considered exculpatory and support actual innocence claim, and were material to issue of police coercion; and newly discovered evidence was material and noncumulative. (ROCHFORD and DELORT, concurring.)