Criminal Law

Dist. Ct. did not err in summarily dismissing defendant’s habeas petition challenging his sexual assault and attempted homicide convictions arising out of incident in which defendant admitted to accidentally shooting female victim in thigh after having sex with victim at massage parlor where defendant claimed that govt. violated Brady by withholding his gun and semen-stained sheets and towels recovered at crime scene. Defendant could not establish Brady violation with respect to gun since defendant was always aware of its existence. Moreover, while withholding of instant sheets and towels could potentially constitute Brady violation, defendant failed to establish that said evidence was material to his prosecution where: (1) defendant’s own testimony placed him alone with victim at scene of crime with gun; (2) withheld evidence would not provide defendant with helpful evidence to counter evidence of victim’s severe head injuries that were attributable to defendant’s gun; and (3) withheld evidence of prostitution was likely inadmissible under Wisc.’s rape-shield law.

Defendant waived his contention that Dist. Ct. erred in failing to address merits of defendant's untimely motion to suppress where defendant subsequently entered into unconditional guilty plea to charge of unlawful possession of firearm. Entry of unconditional guilty plea waives all non-jurisdictional defects arising prior to entry of said plea, and defendant failed to otherwise preserve said issue under Rule 11(a)(2). Ct. rejected govt. stance that absence of conditional guilty plea that preserved suppression issue for appeal is not fatal to Ct. of Appeals acquiring jurisdiction of appeal where, as here, govt. had failed to mention defendant's waiver of suppression issue and addressed merits of said issue in its brief.

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendants to 78-month and 97-month terms of incarceration on charge of wire fraud arising out of internet fraud scheme in which defendants cashed checks on behalf of others in Romania who advertised sales of non-existent goods on internet, where Dist. Ct. found that defendants were accountable under section 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) of USSG for conduct of their co-conspirators in Romania. While defendants argued that Dist. Ct. made insufficient findings with respect to scope of their criminal activity, Dist. Ct. made appropriate findings regarding similarities in modus operandi and long-term coordination of activities among defendants with their co-conspirators in Romania, as well as shared resources so as to support finding that defendants and their co-conspirators were working together in joint undertaking.

Record contained sufficient evidence to support guilty verdict on charge of attempted possession with intent to distribute cocaine arising out of incident in which govt. agent and confidential informant approached defendant with idea to rob non-existent drug stash house. While defendant never appeared with others on day of planned robbery, defendant still could be convicted of charged offense on aiding and abetting theory where defendant participated in planning of robbery and recruited another to help with robbery. Ct. rejected defendant’s claim that govt. was required to show that he was physically present at crime scene in order to be found guilty of charged offense.