9 South County Street, Waukegan, Illinois. (847) 263-0001. A record of my past and present escapades and experiences as a criminal defense lawyer including D.U.I., Drugs and Narcotics Charges, Traffic Violations, White Collar Crimes, Domestic Violence Crimes, Sexual Offenses, Misdemeanors, Serious Violent Crimes and Murder. My office is across the street from the courthouse. Call me - I will consult with you for free.
Postconviction Petitions 1st Dist. People v. Parker, 2012 IL App (1st) 101809 (June 29, 2012) Cook Co., 6th Div. (R.E. GORDON ) Reversed and remanded. (Court opinion corrected 7/18/12.) Defendant, then age 18 and in high school, was charged, with five co-defendants, with 1999 murder. At 2004 bench trial, defense did not put on a case, and Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and related charges. Court erred in summarily dismissing pro se postconviction petition; court never ruled on Defendant's actual innocence claim which was accompanied by completely exculpatory affidavit of co-defendant. Affidavit was new evidence, as no amount of diligence could have forced co-defendants to violate their fifth amendment rights. No physical evidence or eyewitness testimony, and primary evidence was confession obtained after 15 hours of multiple interrogations. Defendant had no prior record, no juvenile record, and no gang affiliation, and his petition is not based on meritless legal theory or fanciful factual allegation. Irrelevant that co-defendant's affidavit was not notarized, as this technicality should not prevent advancement to second-stage proceedings. (GARCIA and LAMPKIN, concurring.)
Postconviction Petitions 1st Dist. People v. Parker, 2012 IL App (1st) 101809 (June 29, 2012) Cook Co., 6th Div. (R.E. GORDON ) Reversed and remanded. (Court opinion corrected 7/18/12.) Defendant, then age 18 and in high school, was charged, with five co-defendants, with 1999 murder. At 2004 bench trial, defense did not put on a case, and Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and related charges. Court erred in summarily dismissing pro se postconviction petition; court never ruled on Defendant's actual innocence claim which was accompanied by completely exculpatory affidavit of co-defendant. Affidavit was new evidence, as no amount of diligence could have forced co-defendants to violate their fifth amendment rights. No physical evidence or eyewitness testimony, and primary evidence was confession obtained after 15 hours of multiple interrogations. Defendant had no prior record, no juvenile record, and no gang affiliation, and his petition is not based on meritless legal theory or fanciful factual allegation. Irrelevant that co-defendant's affidavit was not notarized, as this technicality should not prevent advancement to second-stage proceedings. (GARCIA and LAMPKIN, concurring.)
Motion to Supress 3d Dist. People v. Hackett, 2012 IL 111781 (July 6, 2012) Will Co. (KARMEIER) Reversed and remanded. Defendant was charged with aggravated DUI and aggravated driving while license revoked (DWLR). Officer's observations justified investigatory traffic stop, when he twice saw Defendant deviate from his own lane into another lane for no obvious reason. Motor Vehicle Code provision for improper lane usage contains no distance requirement; thus, it is irrelevant to officer's justification for investigatory stop whether motorist has driven for any appreciable distance in more than one lane. (KILBRIDE, FREEMAN, THOMAS, GARMAN, BURKE, and THEIS, concurring.)
Fair Trial 1st Dist. People v. Lopez, 2012 IL App (1st) 101395 (June 22, 2012) Cook Co., 5th Div. (EPSTEIN) Affirmed. Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of crimninal sexual abuse and unlawful restraint. Court erred in not permitting defense counsel to refresh recollection of witness of during cross-examination, as questions sufficiently apprised witness of time, place and persons to whom statement was made. Court's erroneous ruling, and comments criticizing defense counsel, were not error so serious to cause biased jury; commentary did not suggest opinions on merits of defense evidence, and most comments were in response to defense counsel's repeatedly committing same error in questioning witness. Defendant failed to show he was deprived of fair trial by judge stating that he would impose time limits on closing arguments and would allow State more time than it allowed Defendant. (J. GORDON and McBRIDE, concurring.)
Battery 3d Dist. People v. Howard, 2012 IL App (3d) 100925 (May 29, 2012) Knox Co. (HOLDRIDGE) Affirmed as modified. (Court opinion corrected 6/11/12.) Defendant was convicted of aggravated domestic battery. Evidence failed to establish that Defendant and victim were in a dating relationship, with romantic focus; instead, evidence established their non-exclusive physical relationship consisting of random sexual encounters. Thus, conviction should be reduced to aggravated battery. (O'BRIEN, concurring; SCHMIDT, dissenting.)
Sentencing U.S. v. Figueroa, No. 11-2594 (June 11, 2012) N.D. Ill., E. Div. Affirmed Dist. Ct. did not err in applying enhancement under section 3B1.1 of USSG when sentencing defendant on drug charges, after finding that defendant supervised at least one individual in drug operation involving four individuals. While defendant argued that enhancement was not warranted because he was only implementing decisions made by another individual, record supported imposition of instant enhancement where defendant acted as supervisor by telling third-party where to obtain and to deliver drugs on behalf of drug operation. Fact that some directives could have come from another individual did not preclude defendant from playing either manager or supervisory role in drug operation.
Postconviction Petitions 1st Dist.
ReplyDeletePeople v. Parker, 2012 IL App (1st) 101809 (June 29, 2012) Cook Co., 6th Div. (R.E. GORDON ) Reversed and remanded.
(Court opinion corrected 7/18/12.) Defendant, then age 18 and in high school, was charged, with five co-defendants, with 1999 murder. At 2004 bench trial, defense did not put on a case, and Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and related charges. Court erred in summarily dismissing pro se postconviction petition; court never ruled on Defendant's actual innocence claim which was accompanied by completely exculpatory affidavit of co-defendant. Affidavit was new evidence, as no amount of diligence could have forced co-defendants to violate their fifth amendment rights. No physical evidence or eyewitness testimony, and primary evidence was confession obtained after 15 hours of multiple interrogations. Defendant had no prior record, no juvenile record, and no gang affiliation, and his petition is not based on meritless legal theory or fanciful factual allegation. Irrelevant that co-defendant's affidavit was not notarized, as this technicality should not prevent advancement to second-stage proceedings. (GARCIA and LAMPKIN, concurring.)
Postconviction Petitions 1st Dist.
ReplyDeletePeople v. Parker, 2012 IL App (1st) 101809 (June 29, 2012) Cook Co., 6th Div. (R.E. GORDON ) Reversed and remanded.
(Court opinion corrected 7/18/12.) Defendant, then age 18 and in high school, was charged, with five co-defendants, with 1999 murder. At 2004 bench trial, defense did not put on a case, and Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and related charges. Court erred in summarily dismissing pro se postconviction petition; court never ruled on Defendant's actual innocence claim which was accompanied by completely exculpatory affidavit of co-defendant. Affidavit was new evidence, as no amount of diligence could have forced co-defendants to violate their fifth amendment rights. No physical evidence or eyewitness testimony, and primary evidence was confession obtained after 15 hours of multiple interrogations. Defendant had no prior record, no juvenile record, and no gang affiliation, and his petition is not based on meritless legal theory or fanciful factual allegation. Irrelevant that co-defendant's affidavit was not notarized, as this technicality should not prevent advancement to second-stage proceedings. (GARCIA and LAMPKIN, concurring.)
Criminal
ReplyDeleteMotion to Supress 3d Dist.
People v. Hackett, 2012 IL 111781 (July 6, 2012) Will Co. (KARMEIER) Reversed and remanded.
Defendant was charged with aggravated DUI and aggravated driving while license revoked (DWLR). Officer's observations justified investigatory traffic stop, when he twice saw Defendant deviate from his own lane into another lane for no obvious reason. Motor Vehicle Code provision for improper lane usage contains no distance requirement; thus, it is irrelevant to officer's justification for investigatory stop whether motorist has driven for any appreciable distance in more than one lane. (KILBRIDE, FREEMAN, THOMAS, GARMAN, BURKE, and THEIS, concurring.)
Fair Trial 1st Dist.
ReplyDeletePeople v. Lopez, 2012 IL App (1st) 101395 (June 22, 2012) Cook Co., 5th Div. (EPSTEIN) Affirmed.
Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of crimninal sexual abuse and unlawful restraint. Court erred in not permitting defense counsel to refresh recollection of witness of during cross-examination, as questions sufficiently apprised witness of time, place and persons to whom statement was made. Court's erroneous ruling, and comments criticizing defense counsel, were not error so serious to cause biased jury; commentary did not suggest opinions on merits of defense evidence, and most comments were in response to defense counsel's repeatedly committing same error in questioning witness. Defendant failed to show he was deprived of fair trial by judge stating that he would impose time limits on closing arguments and would allow State more time than it allowed Defendant. (J. GORDON and McBRIDE, concurring.)
Battery 3d Dist.
ReplyDeletePeople v. Howard, 2012 IL App (3d) 100925 (May 29, 2012) Knox Co. (HOLDRIDGE) Affirmed as modified.
(Court opinion corrected 6/11/12.) Defendant was convicted of aggravated domestic battery. Evidence failed to establish that Defendant and victim were in a dating relationship, with romantic focus; instead, evidence established their non-exclusive physical relationship consisting of random sexual encounters. Thus, conviction should be reduced to aggravated battery. (O'BRIEN, concurring; SCHMIDT, dissenting.)
Sentencing
ReplyDeleteU.S. v. Figueroa, No. 11-2594 (June 11, 2012) N.D. Ill., E. Div. Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in applying enhancement under section 3B1.1 of USSG when sentencing defendant on drug charges, after finding that defendant supervised at least one individual in drug operation involving four individuals. While defendant argued that enhancement was not warranted because he was only implementing decisions made by another individual, record supported imposition of instant enhancement where defendant acted as supervisor by telling third-party where to obtain and to deliver drugs on behalf of drug operation. Fact that some directives could have come from another individual did not preclude defendant from playing either manager or supervisory role in drug operation.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete