Criminal Law

People v. Harrell

People v. Harrell
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Motions to Suppress
Citation
Case Number: 
2012 IL App (1st) 103724
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 3d Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
MURPHY
Defendant was arrested in Maywood, IL by Chicago police officers in gang investigations unit, acting on tip from informant, and recovered drugs and handgun from his Maywood residence. Court properly quashed arrest and suppressed all statements made related to arrest, as Chicago police arrest was extraterritorial; Defendant's act, surveillance, stop and search, and arrest all occurred outside officers' jurisdiction. Defendant's stepfather had apparent authority to consent to search of Defendant's bedroom, and court properly denied Defendant's motion to suppress evidence found in bedroom. Deterrent effect of applying exclusionary rule could serve purpose of assuring that police act within their authority. (STEELE and NEVILLE, concurring.)

In re: the Commitment of Curtner

In re: the Commitment of Curtner
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act
Citation
Case Number: 
2012 IL App (4th) 110820
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
District: 
4th Dist.
Division/County: 
Coles Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
APPLETON
Respondent was adjudicated a sexually violent person after jury trial. Court properly declined to dismiss a juror who had asked bailiff, mid-trial, about extent of Respondent's dangerousness, as court and counsel had made proper inquiry into juror's question, and juror stated he would not decide issue of dangerousness until he had heard all evidence. Court properly denied Respondent's motion for mistrial based on juors having asked bailiff if Respondent had access to their home addresses. It is only speculation to suggest that address publication would prejudice jury, and thus court was not required to conduct hearing on potential misconduct. Court properly instructed jury that "substantially probably" means "much more likely than not", per Illinois case which looked to Wisconsin law for definition. (STEIGMANN and COOK, concurring.)

People v. Kirchner

People v. Kirchner
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Evidence
Citation
Case Number: 
2012 IL App (2d) 110255
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Winnebago Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
JORGENSEN
Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of attempting to disarm a peace officer. Evidence showed that Defendant intentionally placed his hand on officer's weapon during domestic disturbance call; contact was not merely incidental, as officer could feel his handgun being tugged, and officer pinned down Defendant's hand on top of gun with his elbow. Court reasonably found that Defendant intended to disarm officer and took a substantial step toward disarming him, thus meeting definition of attempt. (HUTCHINSON and SCHOSTOK, concurring.)

People v. Poole

People v. Poole
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Citation
Case Number: 
2012 IL App (4th) 101017
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
District: 
4th Dist.
Division/County: 
McLean Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed as modified; remanded with directions.
Justice: 
COOK
Defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel did not move to sever the posssession-of-a-firearm-by-a-felon charge from charges of aggravated battery with a firearm and aggravated discharge of a firearm. A defense decision not to seek a severance is a matter of trial strategy. A defendant convicted of multiple offenses may be sentenced to extended-term sentence only on those offenses within the most serious class. Defendant cannot be sentenced to an extended term if the most serious offense convicted does not allow extended term. (STEIGMANN and APPLETON, concurring.)

Public Act 97-815

Topic: 
Victims' rights
(Mayfield, D-Waukegan; Link, D-Lincolnshire) makes the following changes to the statute governing victims’ rights. (1) Requires the investigating law enforcement agency to provide a crime victim with a written statement and explanation of the their rights within 48 hours of law enforcement's initial contact with a victim. (2) Requires that the clerk of the circuit court post the rights of crime victims within three feet of the door to any courtroom where criminal proceedings are conducted. Effective January 1, 2013.
View Full Text of Legislation

Public Act 97-803

Topic: 
Neglected child
(Haine, D-Alton; Mayfield, D-Waukegan) creates an additional definition of “neglected child” in the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act. It includes an environment that is injurious if (1) the child’s environment creates a likelihood of harm to the child’s health, physical well-being, or welfare and (2) the likely harm to the child is the result of a blatant disregard of parent or caretaker responsibilities. “Blatant disregard” is defined as if the real, significant, and imminent risk of harm would be so obvious to a reasonable parent or caretaker that it is unlikely that a reasonable parent or caretaker would have exposed the child to the danger without exercising precautionary measures to protect the child from harm. Effective July 13, 2012.
View Full Text of Legislation

U.S. v. Dixon

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Dixon
Criminal Court
Sentencing
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 11-3802
Decision Date: 
July 18, 2012
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to reduce sentence on charge of conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine based on retroactive change to crack cocaine sentencing guidelines where defendant had previously been sentenced pursuant to terms of plea agreement. Terms of plea agreement provided for sentence between specific range of years, and Supreme Court, in Freeman, 131 SCt 2685, found that Dist. Ct. does not have authority to grant relief under section 18 USC section 3582(c)(2) where, as here, original sentence was imposed pursuant to binding plea agreement that did not expressly refer to or rely upon specific guideline sentencing range.

U.S. v. Tello

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Tello
Criminal Court
Indictment
Citation
Case Number: 
Nos. 10-2677 & 10-2933 Cons.
Decision Date: 
July 18, 2012
Federal District: 
E.D. Wisc.
Holding: 
Affirmed and vacated in part and remanded
Defendant was not entitled to withdraw his guilty plea on charge of conspiracy to conduct gang's affairs through pattern of racketeering activity under 18 USC section 1962(d). Ct. rejected defendant’s argument that predicate acts of racketeering referenced in his plea agreement varied materially from those alleged in indictment and found that defendant’s plea agreement tracked essential allegations of relevant count so as to establish defendant’s guilt on conspiracy charge. Ct. rejected defendant’s argument that govt. was required to show that he committed or agreed to commit two specific predicate acts of racketeering to establish racketeering conspiracy under section 1962(d). Remand, though, was required for new sentencing hearing where Dist. Ct. had exceeded scope of prior remand for new sentence hearing by imposing enhancement that had never been raised at original sentencing hearing.

U.S. v. Johns

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Johns
Criminal Court
Fraud
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 11-3299
Decision Date: 
July 17, 2012
Federal District: 
E.D. Wisc.
Holding: 
Affirmed and reversed in part and remanded
Record contained sufficient evidence to support bankruptcy fraud charges stemming from defendant’s false representation to Trustee regarding existence of $30,000 second mortgage on debtors’ home. While defendant argued that he made truthful statement regarding existence of said mortgage, record showed that mortgage document did not secure obligation owed to defendant by debtors, and mortgage document that debtors had with third-party was unenforceable. Moreover record supported conviction on charge that defendant obtained property from debtors arising out of defendant’s scheme to purchase distressed homes at inflated prices since defendant proceeded with sale of debtors’ home in spite of Trustee’s objection to said sale. Fact that debtors satisfied all debts listed in bankruptcy proceeding through proceeds of said sale did not require different result. Remand, though, was required for new sentence hearing where Dist. Ct. erred in finding that debtors suffered either actual or intended loss arising out of defendant’s scheme.