Criminal Law

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's habeas petition challenging his murder conviction on grounds that his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective, and that prosecutor violated Confrontation Clause. Defendant had procedurally defaulted all three issues by failing to raise them either in one round of state-court review or in state-court post-conviction petition, or because state court had denied said claims based on independent state law ground of forfeiture. Moreover, defendant could not get around instant procedural defaults by demonstrating claim of actual innocence where defendant's proffered statements from newly discovered witnesses could not sufficiently counter state's two eye-witness identifications and defendant's self-inculpatory statement.

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss indictment alleging violation of Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act on grounds that prosecution was beyond applicable statute of limitations. While defendant argued that 5-year limitations period began once his child-support arrearage exceeded $10,000, Ct. found that instant prosecution was timely since Act was continuing offense, which was not completed until offense expired. Remand, though, was required for new sentence where Dist. Ct. improperly applied enhancement for violation of court order, where said violation formed element of charged offense.

Dist. Ct. did not err in imposing above guideline sentence of 300-month term of incarceration on various child-pornography crimes where Dist. Ct. found defendant eligible for pattern of abuse enhancement under section 2G2.2(b)(4) of USSG, based in part on defendant's 20-year pattern of misconduct, as well as defendant's exploitation of position of trust and creation of child pornography. Dist. Ct. could properly base sentence on both pattern of abuse enhancement, as well as his abuse of trust position, and record otherwise supported Dist. Ct.'s additional finding that defendant lacked remorse for his abusive conduct. Dist. Ct. also did not err in precluding defendant from having personal access to Internet services as special condition of supervised release.

Dist. Ct. did not commit clear error in sentencing defendant to mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years on drug distribution charge even though govt. had failed to file information pursuant to 21 USC section 851, which would have given defendant formal notice of its intent to seek instant enhanced penalty based upon defendant's criminal history and drug quantity established during trial. Defendant failed to show any prejudice due to lack of formal notice where defendant was aware prior to trial of his prior conviction, and where Dist. Ct. had advised defendant at arraignment of enhanced penalty he faced as result of his prior conviction.

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's habeas petition challenging his 80-year extended term sentence (on murder conviction) that was based on trial ct.'s finding that murder was accompanied by exceptionally brutal or heinous behavior when defendant killed victim by shooting him three times in head. While instant sentence violated Apprendi since jury, as opposed to trial ct., should have made said finding, defendant procedurally defaulted issue by failing to raise it in trial ct., and state appellate court only considered issue under plain error standard. Moreover, defendant also procedurally defaulted related ineffective assistance of counsel claims by failing to include them in defendant's petition for leave to appeal to Ill. Supreme Ct. Defendant further failed to show any prejudice on Apprendi issue where instant execution-style murder qualified as brutal or heinous conduct as matter of law.

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 188-month enhanced term of incarceration on charge of unlawful possession of firearm after Dist. Ct. found defendant eligible for treatment under Armed Career Criminal Act based in part on defendant's Indiana conviction for resisting law enforcement in vehicle, which qualified as violent felony under ACCA. Defendant's argument that his Indiana conviction did not qualify as violent felony under ACCA was previously rejected in Spells, 537 F3d 743, and Ct. rejected defendant's invitation to overrule Spells by applying contrary 11th Circuit holding in Harrison, 558 F3d 1280, that addressed similar prior conviction.

In prosecution on unlawful possession of firearm charge, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress firearm seized from defendant's computer case after defendant's girlfriend, who had custody of said case, granted police consent to search computer case during traffic stop. Girlfriend had apparent authority to give consent to search computer case where officer had previously observed defendant give computer case to girlfriend, and where there was no evidence that officer was aware that girlfriend did not have authority to consent to search of computer case. Moreover, instant search was within scope of consent where girlfriend placed no limits on extent of search.