Criminal Law

U.S. v. Hall

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Hall
Criminal Court
Jury Instructions
Citation
Case Number: 
Nos. 09-2682 & 09-2470 Cons.
Decision Date: 
June 17, 2010
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed
In prosecution on drug and firearm charges arising out of staged sting in which undercover agent approached defendant about robbing fictitious drug house, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's request for entrapment jury instruction where: (1) defendant had prior conviction for armed robbery; (2) defendant expressed on several occasions willingness to participate in proposed robbery; and (3) defendant was involved in planning for robbery and expressed willingness to kill others if necessary to accomplish robbery. Ct. rejected defendant's claim that potential for selling drugs for substantial profit constituted extraordinary inducement to justify entrapment instruction.

Wilson v. Gaetz

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Wilson v. Gaetz
Criminal Court
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 09-2111
Decision Date: 
June 17, 2010
Federal District: 
C.D. Ill.
Holding: 
Vacated and remanded
Dist. Ct. erred in denying without evidentiary hearing defendant's habeas petition challenging his murder conviction on grounds that his trial counsel was ineffective in presenting insanity defense where defendant killed his boss while suffering from delusional disorder and where defense counsel did not heed expert's advice to obtain second opinion about defendant's sanity. Record showed that defense counsel did not sufficiently prepare for expert's testimony and failed to make defendant available to said expert to permit more accurate assessment of defendant's mental state. Moreover, evidentiary hearing was also required to determine whether said deficiencies were prejudicial to defendant's case.

U.S. v. Parker

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Parker
Criminal Court
Citation
Case Number: 
Nos. 09-4044 & 09-4046 Cons.
Decision Date: 
June 16, 2010
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's motion to vacate his sentence that was filed in habeas petition that alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective in giving defendant wrong advice prior to defendant's entry of guilty plea to drug distribution charge. While counsel gave wrong advice with respect to issue of maximum potential sentence and with respect to inflated amount of cocaine attributable to defendant, defendant could not show prejudice where: (1) actual potential sentence was higher than what counsel told defendant; and (2) defendant admitted to higher quantity of drugs when entering guilty plea.

Public Act 96-924

Topic: 
Veterans and Servicemembers Court Treatment Act.
authorizes the chief judge of each circuit to create a veterans' court to handle certain cases involving veterans. It is to be funded by adding veterans courts to the current $10 fee assessed on convictions or pleas of supervision that funds drug courts. At the discretion of the chief judge, the veterans court program may be operated in one county in the circuit and veterans from all counties within the circuit may participate. A defendant may be admitted into a veterans court program only upon the agreement of the prosecutor and the defendant and with the approval of the Court. Effective June 14, 2010.
View Full Text of Legislation

U.S. v. Lewis

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Lewis
Criminal Court
Search and Seizure
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 09-3804
Decision Date: 
June 14, 2010
Federal District: 
E.D. Wisc.
Holding: 
Affirmed
In prosecution on unlawful possession of firearm charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress firearm seized by police in bedroom of apartment occupied by defendant, even though defendant argued that police lacked consent to either enter apartment or to go into bedroom. Record showed that defendant let housing security guard and two police officers into apartment after they had identified themselves, and that defendant did not register objection to officer going into bedroom to retrieve defendant's identification. Ct. rejected defendant's argument that he was unlawfully seized at time he gave consent where record showed that police possessed reasonable suspicion through prior third-party reports to believe that defendant had committed housing and firearm violations at time they had entered apartment.

U.S. v. Boyd

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Boyd
Criminal Court
Sentencing
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 09-1425
Decision Date: 
June 11, 2010
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., W. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed as modified
Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to total sentence of 334-month term of incarceration comprising of 274-month term on drug distribution charge plus consecutive 60-month term for possession of firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking offense. Ct. rejected defendant's argument that 10-year mandatory minimum sentence for instant drug offense precluded Dist. Ct. from imposing consecutive sentence for firearm charge. However, Dist. Ct. erred when ordering defendant to pay fine and special assessments through Inmate Financial Responsibility Program since said program is voluntary to inmates.

Holmes v. Hardy

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Holmes v. Hardy
Criminal Court
Habeas Corpus
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 09-1293
Decision Date: 
June 11, 2010
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's habeas petition challenging his murder conviction, after finding that defendant had procedurally defaulted claims that prosecutor improperly withheld exculpatory evidence and knowingly used false testimony by expert witnesses. Defendant did not raise said issue until he filed 4th post-conviction petition, and state appellate court expressly found that defendant had procedurally waived said claims since defendant had failed to show that he could not have raised them in earlier pleadings. Defendant also failed to establish any reasonable cause for waiting until fourth post-conviction to raise said issues when he admitted in state court that he was aware of said issues prior to filing third post-conviction petition, and record otherwise did not establish that defendant was actually innocent of charged offense.

U.S. v. Rodriguez-Gomez

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Rodriguez-Gomez
Criminal Court
Sentencing
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 08-3173
Decision Date: 
June 11, 2010
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not commit plain error in sentencing defendant to 100-month term of incarceration on charge of illegal re-entry to U.S. after having been deported where Dist. Ct. found that defendant's prior state-court conviction for aggravated battery constituted crime of violence for purposes of imposing 16-level enhancement under section 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) of USSG. Said offense qualified as crime of violence where language of state-court indictment indicated that defendant had struck police officer in groin area during his arrest, which in turn indicated that proof necessary to convict defendant required showing of use or threatened use of physical force.

People v. Mendoza

People v. Mendoza
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 1-08-3411
Decision Date: 
Monday, June 7, 2010
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 1st Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
GARCIA
Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of attempted murder and aggravated battery with a firearm. Four witnesses, including the victim, testified that the defendant fired four shots at victim, striking his leg and torso. Defendant argued at trial that he aimed at victim's legs, not his torso, that victim fell into the bullet, and that he did not have the intent to kill the victim. Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, in postconviction petition, that his trial counsel should not have stipulated to testimony of two physicians, as live testimony as to the trajectory of the shots would have been better, is hindsight and was properly dismissed. Even with physician's opinions about trajectory the multiple witness testimony as to shooting was overwhelming evidence. No showing that postconviction counsel violated any duties mandated by Rule 651(c).

U.S. v. Rollins

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Rollins
Civil Court
Habeas Corpus
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 09-2293
Decision Date: 
June 9, 2010
Federal District: 
S.D. Ill.
Holding: 
Vacated and remanded
Dist. Ct. erred in denying defendant's motion for new trial on drug distribution charge where ruling was based on Dist. Ct.'s conclusion that facts contained in defendant's motion were not newly discovered. Defendant's motion should have been treated as habeas petition under section 2255 where defendant asserted that his indictment was procured irregularly, that prosecutor withheld certain information during discovery, and that his counsel was ineffective. As such, Dist. Ct. should have addressed merits of defendant's arguments since claims under section 2255 do not depend on evidence being newly discovered. Moreover, defendant's appeal was timely since it was filed within 10 days of denial of his motion for reconsideration.