Criminal Law

People v. Larimer

Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Post-Conviction Petition
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 1-10-0116
Decision Date: 
Friday, May 13, 2011
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 5th Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
EPSTEIN

Relief under Post-Conviction Hearing Act is not available to a defendant while she is completing a period on supervision following trial on a misdemeanor charge. A defendant on supervision may, per Rule 604(b), file a direct appeal from the judgment and may seek review of the conditions of supervision. (FITZGERALD SMITH and HOWSE, concurring.)

People v. Tolentino

People v. Tolentino
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Ex Post Facto Laws
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 1-09-1388
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 2d Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed and remanded.
Justice: 
HARRIS
Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of attempted first degree murder, being an armed habitual criminal, and aggravated discharge of a firearm, in shooting at police officer and other person. Court did not err in applying firearm enhancement to sentence, as statute does not prohibit it, when sentencing under subsection (A), and enhancement promotes policy concerns to deter intentional killings of peace officers and to discourage use of firearms in commission of felonies. Armed habitual criminal statute is not ex post facto legislation. None of the offenses charged are lesser included offenses, as each requires proof of distinct acts not necessary to prove the other offenses. (KARNEZIS and CONNORS, concurring.)

People v. Hill

People v. Hill
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Battery
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 4-09-0765
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
District: 
4th Dist.
Division/County: 
Macon Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed and remanded.
Justice: 
TURNER
Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of aggravated battery to a person in the county jail, a public property. County jail was property owned by the government and was thus public property, and as battery took place within the jail in a jail pod, offense falls within aggravated-battery statute. Court properly took judicial notice that the jail is public property. (POPE and McCULLOUGH, concurring.)

U.S. v. Sellers

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Sellers
Criminal Court
Right to Counsel
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 09-2516
Decision Date: 
May 19, 2011
Federal District: 
N.D. Ind., Hammond Div.
Holding: 
Vacated and remanded
In prosecution which resulted in guilty verdict on drug distribution and firearms charges, Dist. Ct. erred in denying defendant's motion to continue trial to permit new counsel time to prepare for trial, even though said motion was filed only 5 days prior to scheduled trial date. Record failed to contain indication that Dist. Ct. had balanced any of defendant's special circumstances against needs of fairness and demands of Dist. Ct.'s calendar, and instead showed that denial was based on arbitrary and unyielding principles that: (1) new counsel must take case as he finds it; (2) continuances should not be granted for those who request them at 11th hour and miss other deadlines; and (3) delay of one case would unfairly backlog other cases. Moreover, Dist. Ct. overlooked defendant's legitimate rationale for firing current counsel where: (1) said counsel had never been defendant's counsel of choice; (2) defendant had expressed disagreements with current counsel; and (3) current counsel believed that another counsel would be entering appearance and trying case.

People v. Allen

People v. Allen
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Search & Seizure
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 4-09-0682
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
District: 
4th Dist.
Division/County: 
McLean Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
KNECHT
Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of unlawful possesxsion of controlled substance with intent to deliver. Court properly denied motion to quash arrest and suppress. During sting operation, officer searched Defendant's mouth, by pinching his upper lip and discerning that there was contraband in the mouth; Defendant spat out several baggies of cocaine, after officer told him to spit it out. Detention was supported by a reasonable suspicion of Defendant's involvement in an ongoing crime. Search of mouth was a valid search incident to an arrest which was supported by probable cause developed within permissible scope of Terry stop.(APPELTON and POPE, concurring.)

People v. Jackson

People v. Jackson
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Due Process
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 1-09-1585
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 2d Div.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Justice: 
HARRIS
Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of first degree murder, but mentally ill; Defendant had raised defense of insanity at trial. Court abandoned its role as neutral and impartial arbiter of fact by adopting a prosecutorial role when questioning Defendant's forensic psychology expert and by relying on matters based on prior private knowledge. Tone of and resulting answers to court's questions to defense expert's questions suggest that court prejudged outcome of case. Case remanded for new trial before a difference judge. (CUNNINGHAM, concurring; CONNORS, dissenting.)

People v. Vargas

People v. Vargas
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Voir Dire
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 1-08-0383
Decision Date: 
Friday, May 6, 2011
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 5th Div.
Holding: 
Remanded with directions.
Justice: 
EPSTEIN
Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of first degree murder, attempted first degree murder, and aggravated discharge of a firearm. Court failed to make any inquiry of pro se Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and was dismissive of claims and critical of Defendant for asserting his misgivings. Without proper inquiry and development, the court could not fully evaluate Defendant's claims. Court's phrasing in voir dire of Defendant's choice to not testify was sufficient to ascertain the understanding and acceptance of the principle, and asking for jurors' promise to agree with the principle further emphasized its importance. Conviction for aggravated discharge of firearm violates the one-act, one-crime rule. (J. GORDON and HOWSE, concurring.)

House Bill 2362

Topic: 
Mental health records
(Barickman, R-Pontiac; Frerichs, D-Champaign) amends the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Confidentiality Act for release of records for fitness hearings in criminal cases. These records may be disclosed if made within 180-days before the health-care provider is appointed by the court. The records are admissible only as to the issue of the defendant’s fitness to stand trial. On third reading in the Senate after passing the House.
View Full Text of Legislation

People v. Santiago

People v. Santiago
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Guilty Pleas
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 1-09-3202
Decision Date: 
Friday, May 13, 2011
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 6th Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
GARCIA
Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of first degree murder. Court properly admitted two prior statement inconsistent with the Defendant's accomplices' trial testimony. State's references to the accomplices' guilty pleas did not state or suggest to jury that the pleas were evidence of the Defendant's guilt. The pleas added little to the substantial evidence against Defendant, and the references were made in course of direct examination, after each denied his prior identification of the Defendant as the shooter. (McBRIDE, concurring; R.E. GORDON, specially concurring.)

People v. Fillyaw

People v. Fillyaw
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Citation
Case Number: 
Nos. 2-09-0693, 2-09-0694 Cons.
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Lake Co.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded.
Justice: 
BURKE
Two defendants were convicted of first-degree murder of one person and of attempted first-degree murders of two other persons. Defense counsel failed to object on proper grounds to improper admission of statement of State's witness, that Defendant admitted that he and the other Defendant kicked down a door and shot three people, but which was not based on witness' own personal knowledge. Defense counsel failed to request a contemporaneous jury instruction, and failed to properly address error in posttrial motion. As outcome of trial would likely have been different but for these errors, Defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel. Other defendant's rights were violated by admission of witness' statement explicity incuplating him, and by having been tried jointly with other defendant whose hearsay statement explicitly inculpated him. (JORGENSEN and McLAREN, concurring.)