Criminal Law

U.S. v. Alcala

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Alcala
Criminal Court
Guilty Plea
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 11-2412
Decision Date: 
May 3, 2012
Federal District: 
E.D. Wisc.
Holding: 
Appeal dismissed
Ct. of Appeals dismissed defendant’s appeal that challenged Dist. Ct.’s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, where terms of plea agreement included waiver of defendant’s right to appeal his conviction. Defendant’s appeal of denial of his motion to withdraw guilty plea was tantamount to appeal of conviction, and thus was covered by instant appeal waiver. Ct. further rejected defendant’s claim that his Spanish-language barrier, as well as his 8th-grade education precluded him from understanding appellate waiver provision, after Ct. found that defendant’s plea colloquy indicated that he voluntarily waived right to appeal.

U.S. v. Schiro

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Schiro
Criminal Court
Double Jeopardy
Citation
Case Number: 
Nos. 09-1265 et al. Cons.
Decision Date: 
May 1, 2012
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed and reversed in part.
In prosecution in RICO charges alleging that defendants participated in pattern of racketeering activity that extended from 1960s to 2005 that included number of murders and other crimes on behalf of Chicago Outfit gang, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendants' motion to dismiss instant indictment on double jeopardy grounds where defendants argued that instant charge sufficiently overlapped with prior RICO prosecutions that concerned conduct that occurred during roughly same period as instant RICO charge in which defendants were found guilty of various crimes committed on behalf of Calbrese and Carlisli Street Crews that were controlled by Chicago Outfit gang. While instant street crews were operating divisions of Chicago Outfit gang, no Double Jeopardy violation occurred where Chicago Outfit gang had powers and responsibilities that were distinct from street crews, such that instant RICO charge constituted separate conspiracy that was different in scope from RICO conspiracies alleged in prior prosecutions where instant RICO allegations concerned distinctive responsibilities of Chicago Outfit gang. Ct. further found that one defendant failed to successfully withdraw from conspiracy by simply placing notice in newspaper to notify police whenever anyone heard defendant's name in connection with any criminal activity. (Partial dissent filed.)

People v. Lee

People v. Lee
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Miranda Warnings
Citation
Case Number: 
2012 IL App (1st) 101851
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 2d Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed; mittimus corrected.
Justice: 
CUNNINGHAM
Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of first-degree murder, robbery, arson, home invasion and residential burglary. Defendant's statement that he didn't want to say anything and wanted a lawyer had no bearing on whether Defendant later waived his rights when given fresh set of Miranda warnings during each interview session. Court's finding that Defendant's statement was voluntary was not against manifest weight of evidence. Miranda warnings were given multiple times prior to statement, interview sessions were under 45 minutes with long time intervals between them, Defendant was age 21 and had a GED and had previous experience with criminal justice system, and he was not coerced by police. Medical examiner's testimony on autopsy report findings was not testimonial in nature, and reports fell within business records exception to hearsay; thus, Defendant's right to confrontation was not implicated. (QUINN and HARRIS, concurring.)

U.S. v. Konczak

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Konczak
Criminal Court
Guilty Plea
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 11-2969
Decision Date: 
April 26, 2012
Federal District: 
C.D. Ill.
Holding: 
Appeal dismissed
Ct. of Appeals granted motion by defendant's appellate counsel to withdraw as counsel after counsel filed Anders brief. Ct. agreed with counsel that defendant's challenge to his guilty pleas was frivolous where defendant could not point to any deficiency in plea colloquy, and where record showed that said Dist. Ct. had substantially complied with requirements set forth in Rule 11. Ct. emphasized that counsel seeking to assert Rule 11 challenge to guilty plea must demonstrate that counsel had previously advised defendant as to risks associated with withdrawal of guilty plea and had discussed with defendant whether he really wanted to withdraw his guilty plea.

People v. Nasolo

People v. Nasolo
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
resisting arrest
Citation
Case Number: 
2012 IL App (2d) 101059
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Lake Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed as modified.
Justice: 
JORGENSEN
(Modified upon denial of rehearing 4/23/12.) Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of resisting a peace officer, based on her complete refusal to be either photographed or fingerprinted during booking process. Regardless of whether Defendant committed a physical act, her refusal actually obstructed officers in completing booking process, which is essential element of offense of resisting a peace officer. (ZENOFF and HUDSON, concurring.)

U.S. v. Bahena-Navano

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Bahena-Navano
Criminal Court
Guilty Plea
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 11-1348
Decision Date: 
April 24, 2012
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in rejecting defendant’s guilty plea to charge of illegal re-entry into U.S. by previously deported alien where record showed that at time defendant made said plea on day of trial, he was unwilling to waive right against self-incrimination, and that defendant stated on two occasions during plea colloquy that he wanted to go to trial. Ct. rejected defendant’s claim that Dist. Ct. coerced him into proceeding to trial by failing to fully inquire about defendant’s confusion regarding waiver of his trial rights.

HJRCA 29

Topic: 
Victims' rights constitutional amendment
(Lang, D-Chicago; Steans, D-Chicago) is poised to amend the Illinois Constitution to create standing for victims to participate in criminal proceedings as a party. If passed, it would go on the ballot this November for Illinois citizens to approve or disapprove. It expands several of the ten current rights and creates three new ones. Specifically, HJRCA 29 creates the following rights for victims: (1) The right to be free from “harassment, intimidation, and abuse” throughout the criminal justice process. Currently Section 8.1 requires that victims be treated with fairness and respect for their dignity and privacy. (2) The right to refuse to disclose to the defendant information that is privileged or confidential by law, as determined by a court of law with jurisdiction over the case. (3) The right to confer (instead of communicate) with the prosecution. (4) The right to be heard at any post-arraignment court proceeding in which a right of the victim is at issue and any court proceeding involving a post-arraignment release decision, plea, or sentencing. Currently victims have a right to make a statement to the court at sentencing. (5) The right to have access to information in a report related to any aspect of a defendant’s sentence when available to the defendant as the General Assembly may provide by law. (6) The right to be notified of the conviction, the sentence, the imprisonment, and the release of the accused. (7) The right to have the safety of the victim and the victim's family considered in denying or fixing the amount of bail, determining whether to release the defendant, and setting conditions of release after arrest and conviction. HJRCA 29 is scheduled for hearing today in Senate Executive Committee.
View Full Text of Legislation

People v. Rebecca

People v. Rebecca
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Citation
Case Number: 
2012 IL App (2d) 091259
Decision Date: 
Friday, April 20, 2012
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Lake Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
BOWMAN
Defendant was convicted, after three separate jury trials, of several counts of multiple sexual offenses as to three victims who were children of friends of Defendant, and consecutive sentences totalled 240 years. Jury instructions did not improperly expand charges in indictment; defense used statute's language as to position of trust, authority, or supervision in its motions for bill of particulars, and knew that State was proceeding under this language. State's comments in rebuttal were part of State's overall response to defense argument that he did not hold position of trust, authority, or supervision, and did not mislead jury as to defense theory. No ineffective assistance of counsel in requesting preplea presentencing investigation report and sex offender evaluation as matter of strategy to assist in plea negotiations.(ZENOFF, concurring; McLAREN, dissenting.)

People v. Harris

People v. Harris
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Sentencing
Citation
Case Number: 
2012 IL App (1st) 092251
Decision Date: 
Friday, April 20, 2012
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 5th Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed in part; remanded.
Justice: 
J. GORDON
As truth-in-sentencing provision does not affect sentencing range imposed for offenses of aggravated kidnapping and armed violence, but only the manner in which sentence is carried out, it does not violate proportionate penalties clause. No violation of equal protection clause where two offenses have same elements but different eligibility for good-time credit. (FITZGERALD SMITH and HOWSE, concurring.)

People v. Hurry

People v. Hurry
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Sexual Abuse
Citation
Case Number: 
2012 IL App (3d) 100150
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
Henry Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed in part and reversed in part; remanded.
Justice: 
McDADE
(Court opinion modified upon denial of rehearing 4/20/12.) Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of 10 counts of predatory criminal assault of a child. Corpus delicti of one count was proven, as Defendant's confession was sufficiently corroborated by other evidence (testimony of victim) that tended to prove accuracy of his statements. Convictions on two counts reduced to aggravated criminal sexual abuse, as State produced independent evidence of conduct falling within that offense. (O'BRIEN and CARTER, concurring.)