Criminal Law

U.S. v. Hicks

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Hicks
Criminal Court
Evidence
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 09-3608
Decision Date: 
April 4, 2011
Federal District: 
S.D. Ind., Indianapolis Div.
Holding: 
Vacated and remanded
In prosecution on drug distribution charge arising out of controlled purchase, Dist. Ct. erred in granting prosecutor's motion to introduce during govt.'s case-in-chief evidence of defendant's two prior drug convictions, where defendant did not raise his intent as issue during govt.'s case-in-chief, since effect of such evidence was only to establish defendant's propensity to commit charged offense. Result did not change even though defendant presented entrapment defense after close of govt.'s case-in-chief.

People v. Cichon

People v. Cichon
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 3-09-0408
Decision Date: 
Thursday, March 17, 2011
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
La Salle Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
SCHMIDT
(Court opinion corrected 3/29/11.) Defendant was indicted on 54 counts of various sexual assault and abuse and child pornography offenses, and pled guilty to multiple counts for 25-year sentence; his postconviction petition was granted, and then State re-filed charges and offered a 25-year sentence. Defendant rejected plea, went to trial, and was sentenced to 105 years. Defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel, as attorney who represented him in postconviction-relief proceedings, resulting in the vacating of his previous guilty plea, did not represent him in a proceeding that resulted in his conviction. Any error by counsel, if cognizable, in advising him of likely sentence, was cured by Defendant being informed in open court that he could receive a sentence much greater than 25 years. (McDADE and WRIGHT, concurring.)

People v. Moore

People v. Moore
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Fitness
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 1-09-0662
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 2d Div.
Holding: 
Remanded with directions.
Justice: 
HARRIS
(Court opinion corrected 3/25/11.) Defendant, after jury trial, was convicted of delivery of controlled substance. Defendant, who stated to court prior to start of trial that he had not taken his medicaiton on day of trial or two days prior to trial, raised a bona fide doubt as to his fitness to stand trial, as court psychiatrist gave uncontradicted testimony that Defendant needed to be on medications to be fit for trial. Court erred in not sua sponte ording a fitness hearing. (CUNNINGHAM, concurring; KARNEZIS, dissenting.)

HJRCA 29

Topic: 
Constitutional amendment for victims' rights
(Lang, D-Skokie) amends the existing section for victims' rights in the Illinois Constitution. It expands and gives a right of notice and due process with the right to: (1) be free from harassment, intimidation, and abuse. (2) Refuse to disclose information that is privileged or confidential by law. (3) Timely notification of post-trial proceedings. (4) Be heard in person or in any other reasonable manner the victim chooses at any proceeding involving a post-arraignment release decision, or any proceeding in which a right of victim is at issue. (5) Receive a report prepared for sentencing, reduction in sentence, parole, early release, or clemency, when available to the accused. (6) 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. (7) Full and prompt restitution. Scheduled for hearing Thursday morning in House Judiciary Committee II.
View Full Text of Legislation

U.S. v. Capler

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Capler
Criminal Court
Sentencing
Citation
Case Number: 
Nos. 08-3975 & 09-2513 Cons.
Decision Date: 
April 1, 2011
Federal District: 
C.D. Ill.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 141-month term of incarceration on drug conviction where Dist. Ct. found that defendant was career offender based in part on existence of prior Ill. state conviction on charge of unlawful restraint. Under Wallace, 326 F3d 881, Dist. Ct. could properly sentence defendant as career offender since Ill. conviction on charge of unlawful restraint qualified as crime of violence under section 4B1.2 of USSG.

Sussman v. Jenkins

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Sussman v. Jenkins
Criminal Court
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 09-3940
Decision Date: 
April 1, 2011
Federal District: 
W.D. Wisc.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded
Dist. Ct. erred in denying defendant's habeas petition challenging his conviction for child sexual assault on ground that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file required pre-trial motion seeking admissibility of evidence that alleged victim of assault had made prior false accusations of sexual assault against others. Proposed evidence should have been admissible had counsel made required motion since said evidence directly implicated defendant's rights under Confrontation Clause to expose alleged victim's motive to fabricate lie about assault, and counsel's failure to file said pre-trial motion was prejudicial where alleged victim's testimony was central to prosecution's case against defendant. Moreover, record showed that counsel's failure to file pre-trial motion was not part of any strategy, but rather was result of counsel forgetting to file said motion.

People v. Gomez

People v. Gomez
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 2-09-0766
Decision Date: 
Monday, March 28, 2011
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Du Page Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed; mittimus modified.
Justice: 
BOWMAN
Defendant pled guilty to one count of predatory criminal sexual assault, and at sentencing hearing admitted to having sexual abused the victim, a child whom his mother babysat. No ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to move to withdraw his guilty plea after Defendant had asked counsel to do so. As plea was not fully negotiated, filing of motion to withdraw guilty plea was not necessary to take direct appeal, as counsel's having filed a motion to reconsider sentence preserved sentencing issues for direct appeal. (JORGENSEN and HUTCHINSON, concurring.)

People v. Hill

People v. Hill
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Voir Dire
Citation
Case Number: 
No.1-08-2420
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 3d Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed; mittimus corrected.
Justice: 
STEELE
Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of possession of controlled substance with intent to deliver, and delivery of controlled substance, and was sentenced to 12 concurrent prison terms. In voir dire, court initially mentioned three Zehr principles, and left the fourth for questioning by defense counsel; next two panels were asked only a general question about principles mentioned earlier, with voir dire on various subjects in the interim. Although court did not give each juror opportunity to respond as to all Zehr principles, no plain error, as no evidence that jury was biased due to error. Court's "blanket policy" on deferring ruling on admissibility of prior convictions does not violate right to testify. (QUINN and MURPHY, concurring.)

Jones v. Basinger

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Jones v. Basinger
Criminal Court
Evidence
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 09-3577
Decision Date: 
March 31, 2011
Federal District: 
S.D. Ind., Terre Haute Div.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded
Dist. Ct. erred in denying defendant's habeas petition challenging his multiple murder convictions on ground that trial court improperly permitted two police officers to testify in detail about informant's double-hearsay statement from accomplice accusing defendant of having leadership role in said murders. Admission of said evidence was contrary to Crawford, 541 US 36 where, as here, prosecutor used hearsay evidence as substantive evidence of defendant's guilt. Ct. rejected govt. contention that evidence was admissible to establish course of police investigation to explain how police focused on defendant as suspect in case.

People v. Gutierrez

Illinois Supreme Court PLAs
People v. Gutierrez
Criminal Court
Fees
Citation
PLA issue Date: 
March 30, 2011
Docket Number: 
No. 111590
District: 
2nd Dist.
This case presents question as to whether trial court properly imposed $250 public defender fee where trial court had failed to hold any hearing on defendant's ability to pay said fee. Appellate Court agreed that imposition of said fee was improper, but remanded matter back to trial court for consideration of defendant's ability to pay said fee. In his petition for leave to appeal, defendant argued that fee should have been vacated without any remand since section 113-3.1(a) of Code of Criminal Procedure requires that any hearing on defendant's ability to pay must be conducted within 90 days of final order disposing of case at trial level.