Criminal Law

Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing as untimely defendant's habeas petition where said ruling focused in part on delay caused by defendant's submission of state court habeas petition that clerk of circuit court returned to defendant because defendant had failed to include required in forma pauperis application information. Dist. Ct. correctly found that state court habeas petition was not properly filed until defendant tendered in forma pauperis information in resubmitted petition, and thus ADEPA limitations period was not tolled between dates of initial and resubmitted habeas petitions. Ct. also rejected defendant's claim that ADEPA limitations period was tolled during pendency of his petition for rehearing, which was filed after Ill. Supreme Ct. had denied his petition for leave to appeal.

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 87-month term of incarceration on wire fraud charge stemming from scheme to defraud credit union. Ct. rejected defendant’s claim that Dist. Ct. conducted sentencing hearing with its mind already made up as to outcome of sentence before hearing any testimony, and Dist. Ct. could properly credit testimony of govt. witness, who implicated defendant in separate fraud scheme. Ct. also rejected defendant’s contention that: (1) govt. used known false testimony to advance its position during sentencing hearing; or (2) his sentence was impermissibly disparate from 38-month sentence received for similar conduct by govt. witness.

In prosecution on drug distribution charge, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress drugs seized from defendant’s vehicle after defendant was stopped for seatbelt violation. Defendant gave valid consent to search vehicle after police informed him that police would be walking drug-sniffing dog around exterior of vehicle, and length of detention between defendant’s traffic stop and time he gave consent to search was of short duration. Fact that police officers may have had ulterior motive of conducting drug investigation was irrelevant where initial stop for seatbelt violation and subsequent questioning of defendant were proper.

Defendant was entitled under Double Jeopardy principles to vacatur of either bankruptcy fraud or obstruction of justice conviction where both offenses arose out of defendant's attempt to blackmail his ex-wife in exchange for her dropping of claim in defendant's bankruptcy proceeding. Defendant's obstruction of justice charge did not require proof of any fact that did not have to be proved on bankruptcy fraud charge. On remand, Dist. Ct. may let stand lesser-included offense of obstruction of justice where said charge has higher statutory maximum sentence than bankruptcy fraud.