Criminal Law

Ct. of Appeals granted defendant's pro se application for certificate of appealability of Dist. Ct.'s denial of his habeas petition alleging that state court denied his right to counsel in his request to correct his sentence under Ind. Code, section 35-38-1-15. While defendant has no right to counsel in post-conviction proceedings, defendant raised colorable argument that Indiana procedure set forth in section 35-38-1-15 was form of direct appeal for purposes of triggering his constitutional right to counsel.

Record contained sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction on charge of use of interstate commerce in furtherance of murder for hire scheme where third-party recorded his conversations with defendant in which defendant participated in planning of murder of defendant's business partner. Ct. rejected defendant's claim that he was entrapped into using cell phone to discuss details of murder scheme since third-party on behalf of govt. merely provided defendant with opportunity to commit crime when he used cell phone to initiate conversations with defendant. Ct. also rejected defendant's claim that his intrastate use of car to plan scheme was insufficient basis to support instant charge where Ct. found that statute does not require that facility of interstate commerce mentioned in charge actually be used in interstate commerce.

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to prison term of one year and one day on charge of failing to register as sex offender under SORNA. Ct. rejected defendant's claim that SORNA's registration requirements exceeded Congress' authority under Commerce Clause.

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss his indictment alleging Hobbs Act violation arising out of defendant's robbery of convenience store that netted him $54. Indictment alleged that defendant robbed store that was engaged in interstate commerce with respect to retail sale of beverages and food that originated outside State of Wisconsin, and Ct. rejected defendant's request to reconsider its prior finding that de minimus effect on commerce is sufficient to invoke Congress's Commerce Clause power. Moreover, Ct. determined that allegations in instant indictment satisfied relevant standard where instant crime targeted business engaged in interstate commerce.

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 120-month term of incarceration, which represented statutory minimum on charges of attempting to entice minor to engage in sexual activity under 18 USC section 2422(b) and of attempting to transfer obscene material. Ct. rejected defendant's claim that legislature could not constitutionally enact any statutory minimum sentence which takes away all discretion from sentencing judge. Moreover, Ct. rejected defendant's additional claims that: (1) section 2422(b) lacks rational basis for treating him same as individuals who are involved with actual minors; and (2) instant mandatory minimum sentence violated 8th Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.