Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

From behind a closed hotel bathroom door, Casler told Sgt. Draper that his name was Jakuta King Williams, that he had no identification, and that he was from Virginia. Draper recognized Casler when he emerged and remembered having previously arrested him. Draper asked whether he was Rasheed Casler. Casler did not respond. The dispatcher indicated that Casler had an outstanding warrant. Draper arrested Casler. Casler did not attempt to resist or flee. There was no indication that Casler had disposed of evidence in the bathroom. The officers discovered Casler’s Illinois identification card.Casler was charged with possessing less than 15 grams of cocaine and less than five grams of methamphetamine and with obstructing justice by providing false information. Casler testified that, while in the bathroom, he thought that his friends were joking around, so he answered Jakuta King Williams; he did not know there were officers outside the bathroom and was not attempting to avoid arrest. Casler was acquitted of the drug possession charges and convicted of obstructing justice. The appellate court affirmed.The Illinois Supreme Court reversed; 720 ILCS 5/31-4(a)(1), which criminalizes obstructing justice by furnishing false information, includes as an element of the offense that the false information materially impeded the administration of justice. In this case, the charge and the jury instructions did not identify that element of the offense. Retrial is not precluded by the Double Jeopardy Clause. View "People v. Casler" on Justia Law

In 2002, Lusby was convicted of first-degree murder, aggravated criminal sexual assault, and home invasion and sentenced to 130 years’ imprisonment. Though he was 23 years old at the time of the trial, he was only 16 years old at the time of the offenses. After an unsuccessful direct appeal and post-conviction proceedings, he sought leave to file a successive post-conviction petition, asserting that his sentencing hearing was constitutionally inadequate under the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision, Miller v. Alabama. The Will County Circuit Court denied that motion. The appellate court reversed.The Illinois Supreme Court reinstated the trial court’s decision, denying relief. Lusby failed to show cause and prejudice such that the trial court should have granted leave to file a successive post-conviction petition. Lusby had every opportunity to present mitigating evidence but chose not to offer any. The trial court considered his youth and its attendant characteristics before concluding that his future should be spent in prison. The de facto discretionary life sentence passes constitutional muster under Miller; Lusby has not shown prejudice under 725 ILCS 5/122-1(a)(1). Miller does not require a court to use “magic words” before sentencing a juvenile defendant to life imprisonment but only requires consideration of “youth-related factors.” View "People v. Lusby" on Justia Law

Glispie has four Illinois convictions for residential burglary, having pled guilty to knowingly and without authority entering into other people’s dwelling places to commit thefts. He subsequently pled guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)), reserving the right to challenge his designation as an armed career criminal, 18 U.S.C. 924(e). Burglary is included in the definition of a violent felony. The Supreme Court has ruled that burglary “contains at least the following elements: an unlawful or unprivileged entry into, or remaining in, a building or other structure, with intent to commit a crime.” The district court determined that Illinois’s residential burglary statute was no broader than generic burglary and that Glispie’s convictions qualified as violent felonies, increasing his sentencing range from a maximum of 10 years to a minimum of 15 years' imprisonment (and a maximum of life). The court imposed a 15-year sentence.The Seventh Circuit agreed with Glispie that, if the limited authority doctrine applied to the Illinois statute, his convictions would not constitute aggravating offenses. That doctrine provides that the “authority to enter a building for a specific lawful purpose is vitiated when the wrongdoer departs from that purpose and commits a felony or theft.” Answering a question certified by the Seventh Circuit, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the doctrine does apply. Over the course of multiple statutory amendments, the legislature was aware that the term “without authority” in both the burglary and home invasion statutes incorporates the limited authority doctrine. View "United States v. Glispie" on Justia Law

After a dispute at his parents’ house, Gaines was charged with criminal damage to property, criminal trespass to a residence, misdemeanor criminal damage to property, misdemeanor domestic battery, and misdemeanor aggravated assault. At a hearing, the judge initially accepted a negotiated plea to two counts, but subsequently rejected the plea and reinstated the charges. At trial, Gaines was convicted of felony criminal trespass to a residence and misdemeanor domestic battery. Gaines did not raise a double jeopardy argument in post-trial motions. The appellate court ordered his release.The Illinois Supreme Court reversed, reinstating the misdemeanor battery conviction. In the context of a guilty plea proceeding, jeopardy attaches when the court unconditionally accepts the guilty plea. A formal finding of guilt is not required, nor is imposition of a sentence. The court unconditionally accepted Gaines’s guilty plea; jeopardy attached. Jeopardy did not, however, terminate improperly, where the court sua sponte vacated the guilty plea. The court did not abuse its discretion because it had “good reason to doubt the truth of the plea.” Because jeopardy did not terminate improperly, (720 ILCS 5/3-4(a)), Gaines’s subsequent trial on the same offense did not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. Gaines cannot demonstrate prejudice, so his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel fails. View "People v. Gaines" on Justia Law

Hollahan was charged with aggravated DUI. His initial jury trial ended in a mistrial when a video recording of the traffic stop was inadvertently played beyond the point of admissible evidence. During a second jury trial, a redacted video of the traffic stop was played for the jury. Following the presentation of evidence, closing arguments, and instruction as to the applicable law, the jury retired to deliberate. Shortly thereafter, the jury asked to watch the video again. The judge granted that request. The video was shown to the jury in the courtroom because the court did not have the “arrangement” necessary to allow the jury to view the video in the jury deliberation room. The court allowed Hollahan, the attorneys, and two alternate jurors to remain in the courtroom while the jury watched the video. Defense counsel did not object. Before the jury was returned to the courtroom, the court admonished that the jury would be watching the video and that “[n]o one will have any conversation.” The judge told the jurors, “we will not be talking to you other than to get the video, period.” After watching the video, the jury returned to the jury room and found Hollahan guilty.The Illinois Supreme Court found no reversible error. Deliberations were not taking place while the jurors were watching the video in the presence of non-jurors and there was no communication with non-jurors. Even if there were error, Hollahan has not shown that he was prejudiced by the procedure employed by the circuit court. View "People v. Hollahan" on Justia Law

In 1998, a jury convicted Stoecker of first-degree murder and aggravated criminal sexual assault of a 15-year-old girl. His convictions and sentences were affirmed. Stoecker filed numerous unsuccessful petitions for collateral relief. In 2005 Stoecker filed a petition for relief from judgment, arguing that the procedures in imposing his life sentence for murder violated the Supreme Court’s 2000 “Apprendi” holding that, other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty beyond the statutory maximum sentence must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Appointed defense counsel acknowledged that the Illinois Supreme Court had held that Apprendi did not apply retroactively to cases whose direct appeals had been exhausted. The petition was dismissed. Although Stoecker filed subsequent petitions claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, he did not appeal the Apprendi ruling.Seven years later, Stoecker again sought relief from judgment, raising the Apprendi issue. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the petition as untimely. Four years later, Stoecker again sought relief from judgment, arguing that under recent Supreme Court decisions, Apprendi applies retroactively to cases on collateral review. The state moved to dismiss the petition. Four days later, the circuit court dismissed the petition. The state was present but made no argument. Appointed counsel was apparently not notified of the proceeding. The court ruled that the state was correct as a matter of law. Stoecker filed an unsuccessful pro se motion to reconsider.The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. Any violation of Stoecker’s due process rights was harmless because the deficiencies in the petition could not be cured. The petition was untimely, barred by res judicata, and meritless. Any deficient performance by appointed counsel did not warrant remand. View "People v. Stoecker" on Justia Law

Deleon was charged with four counts of criminal sexual assault. The conditions of Deleon’s bond release prohibited him from contacting the victim or visiting her home, school, or workplace. Under 725 ILCS 5/112A-11.5, the State’s Attorney sought a plenary civil no-contact order prohibiting Deleon from contacting the victim, harassing or stalking her, and entering her place of employment. The circuit court orally pronounced that section 112A-11.5 was unconstitutional, both on its face and as applied; an evidentiary hearing was never held nor evidence proffered as to its unconstitutionality as applied to Deleon. The court found that the statute allows the state to make a prima facie case for the issuance of a protective order by producing the indictment without requiring the alleged victim to testify and be subject to cross-examination; that the requirement that a defendant present evidence of a meritorious defense to rebut the prima facie evidence violated constitutional protections against self-incrimination; and that the statute improperly shifts the burden of persuasion to the defense.The Illinois Supreme Court reversed. There is no basis for concluding that due process precludes the use of an indictment, alone, for restricting a defendant’s liberties before trial. The government has a substantial interest in protecting victims of sexual assault and related crimes from continued contact by the accused pending trial. The conditions of the no-contact order were relatively limited and largely identical to the restraints imposed as conditions of pretrial bond release. There is no legal compulsion for a defendant to rebut the prima facie evidence and no self-incrimination concerns. View "People v. Deleon" on Justia Law

In 2013, the defendant was indicted on three counts of first-degree murder and single counts of aggravated kidnapping and violating an order of protection. The defendant pled guilty to one count of first-degree murder; the prosecution agreed to dismiss the remaining charges and to recommend a sentence of 55 years' imprisonment. Defense counsel noted that the terms were “effectively a life sentence” and that, against counsel’s advice, the defendant chose to “take it.” The court accepted the prosecution's factual basis for the plea and inquired about criminal history. The defendant had previously been convicted of manufacture or delivery of cannabis, a Class 1 felony. The parties waived a presentence investigation (PSI) report. The court imposed a 55-year sentence.The defendant filed a timely motion to withdraw his plea, claiming he had not been “in a coherent state of mind” and ineffective assistance. The appellate court vacated his sentence, citing failure to comply with 730 ILCS 5/5-3-1, which requires a circuit court to consider a PSI before sentencing a defendant for a felony offense, except where “both parties agree to the imposition of a specific sentence, provided there is a finding made for the record as to the defendant’s history of delinquency or criminality.” The court held that the PSI requirement cannot be waived.The Illinois Supreme Court reversed, reinstating the sentence. The defendant forfeited any section 5-3-1 claim by failing to raise it in his three motions to withdraw the plea. Despite his attorney’s stated willingness to take the case to trial, he persisted in taking the plea deal. View "People v. Sophanavong" on Justia Law

Legoo was charged with the misdemeanor offense of being a child sex offender in a public park (720 ILCS 5/11- 9.4-1(b)). An officer, attending his grandson’s T-ball game at Mendota's Strouss Park, recognized Legoo and believed he was a registered sex offender. Legoo rode his bicycle through an area between three baseball diamonds. Another officer Corrigan testified went to Legoo’s residence later that night. When asked about his presence in the park, Legoo stated he went there to look for his son. Legoo’s son, C.G., later testified that he was watching a baseball game in the park when Legoo arrived and told him to go home. Legoo then left the park. Legoo testified that he rode his bicycle to the park looking for C.G. and left the park after less than five minutes. Legoo testified that no one else was available to retrieve C.G. from the park that night.The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed Legoo’s conviction. An exception to liability, found in section 11-9.3(a10) applies when a child sex offender, in a public park, approaches, contacts, or communicates with a child under 18 years of age unless the offender is a parent or guardian of a person under 18 years of age present in the building or on the grounds. The exception does not apply to the section under which Legoo was convicted. View "People v. Legoo" on Justia Law

Swenson was convicted of disorderly conduct after a telephone conversation with the advancement director of a private school, during which he asked about the school’s security measures and spoke extensively about shootings and violence. The directed testified that “[h]e said if he were to show up at the campus with a gun what would be the protocol of our school?” He asked whether the school gave teachers “PEZ dispensers to defend themselves” and what the students would think “of seeing a gun pointed in their teacher[’]s face.” The conversation caused a soft lockdown at the school and police response. The director indicated that she thought Swenson was on campus and she did not know why Swenson shared with her that he had been kicked out of the school as a child. Swenson testified that he did not own any weapons.The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed his conviction. Swenson’s statements were objectively threatening under the circumstances; he was subjectively aware of the threatening nature of his speech. The director reasonably perceived the questions and statements as a threat. Swenson’s speech constituted a true threat, unprotected by the first amendment. A rational trier of fact could conclude that the elements of disorderly conduct were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. View "People v. Swenson" on Justia Law