Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Dawkins pleaded guilty to armed robbery of a bank and was sentenced, as a career offender, to serve 262 months in prison. He challenged the sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2244(b) and 2255(h), citing the 2015 Supreme Court holding, Johnson v. United States, that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act is unconstitutionally vague. The Seventh Circuit upheld his sentence, reasoning that the sentencing court did not need to resort to the residual clause of the Armed Criminal Act in order to determine that Dawkins’ prior conviction for burglary was a conviction for a crime of violence. Residential burglary, which is committed when a defendant “knowingly and without authority enters or knowingly and without authority remains within the dwelling place of another … with the intent to commit therein a felony or theft,” under Illinois law (720 ILCS 5/19‐3), satisfies the 1990 Supreme Court ruling in Taylor v. United States, that “a person has been convicted of burglary for purposes of a 924(e) enhancement if he is convicted of any crime … having the basic elements of unlawful or unprivileged entry into, or remaining in, a building or structure, with intent to commit a crime.” View "Dawkins v. United States" on Justia Law

Officer Brooks conducted a traffic stop of Williams for failing to activate his turn signal prior to changing lanes. Williams did not cooperate with instructions from Brooks and Officer Kehl, which led to a physical confrontation. Sergeant Trump arrived at the scene. Officer Brooks arrested Williams for resisting law enforcement. A state court judge dismissed the charge. Williams sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging false arrest, excessive force, and failure to protect in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the officers, relying on a videotape of the incident from a dashboard camera and rejecting arguments that there were material questions of fact as to the unlawful stop and arrest claims, excessive force claim, and failure to protect claims. The court also upheld the district court’s decision to not consider the state court’s findings and to use and rely on the pretrial diversion agreement View "Williams v. Brooks" on Justia Law

In 2013, the district court sentenced Poulin to two concurrent 115-month terms of imprisonment followed by concurrent life terms of supervised release after he pled guilty to receipt and possession of child pornography. The Seventh Circuit vacated, holding that the district court erred by not addressing a principal argument in mitigation and by not providing reasons for imposing the maximum term of supervised release and that the record lacked necessary reasoning for review of the validity of the special conditions. On remand, the district court resentenced Poulin to concurrent 84-month terms of imprisonment on both counts of conviction, followed by a 10-year term of supervised release, with 13 standard conditions of supervision and seven special conditions, without making findings. The Seventh Circuit vacated disputed conditions of supervised release and remanded for resentencing, noting the need for supervised-release conditions that are “properly-noticed, supported by adequate findings, and well-tailored to serve the purposes of deterrence, rehabilitation, and protection of the public.” View "United States v. Poulin" on Justia Law

Madison, Wisconsin Detective Peterson prepared an affidavit for a warrant to search Slizewski’s car, describing four recent robberies. A search of his rental car revealed a gun in the trunk. Slizewski moved to suppress the gun, arguing that Peterson misrepresented and omitted critical information in his search‐warrant affidavit, necessitating a Franks hearing. The district court denied the motion, and Slizewski pleaded guilty as a felon in possession of a firearm, but reserved his right to challenge the denial of his motion. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, upholding the district court ruling that any misstatements or omissions were unintentional or immaterial. Peterson supplied ample, truthful reasons to believe that evidence of the armed robberies was in the car. View "United States v. Slizewski" on Justia Law

Hamad owned a Chicago convenience store that store sold cigarettes. The county taxes and regulates the sale of cigarettes and employs inspectors to enforce its ordinance. Hamad’s store was on a list of prior violators. Inspectors made an undercover purchase of a pack of cigarettes for $6. The typical price of a properly-taxed pack of cigarettes in Chicago was $8 or $9. Inspectors determined that the pack did not bear the required county tax stamp. The inspectors entered the store and identified themselves, entered the area behind the counter to examine the cigarette inventory. On the floor behind the counter, they found a plastic bag that contained prescription bottles, loose pills, and a large, clear candy jar full of white pills. They believed that some were Vicodin, a narcotic painkiller. Inspectors felt and lifted a loose floorboard and found a shoebox, containing magazines for a gun. Under a pile of t-shirts on a shelf, inspectors found a velvet bag, realized it contained a gun, and called the police. The Seventh Circuit affirmed Hamad’s conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), upholding denial of his motion to suppress the firearm and his incriminating statement regarding the firearm. View "United States v. Hamad" on Justia Law

Brown was arrested after making a controlled purchase of heroin. Police found Brown at his residence with more than 100 grams of heroin, a loaded semi-automatic pistol, drug trafficking items, and more than $4,000 in cash. During interrogation, Brown admitted on videotape that he possessed both the heroin and the firearm. Brown was charged with possession of 100 grams or more of heroin with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. 841 and with possession of a firearm by a felon, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). During jury selection, the government used a peremptory strike to remove one of the two African-American members of the venire. Brown unsuccessfully objected under Batson v. Kentucky. Brown was convicted. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, agreeing that the government proffered a race-neutral justification for the strike in stating that the juror’s response to a question about arrests indicated potential bias against law enforcement. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

Jean-Paul was convicted of state drug crimes and sentenced to 13 years’ confinement. His appointed appellate counsel, Donnelly, told Jean-Paul that he intended to file a “no-merit report,” unless Jean-Paul wanted to proceed pro se, in which case Donnelly would ask to withdraw. Jean-Paul wanted to proceed pro se. Donnelly wrote to Jean-Paul that if he signed a “Statement of Decision to Proceed Pro Se,” Donnelly would withdraw. Days later, Jean-Paul told Donnelly that instead of proceeding pro se, he wanted to respond to the No Merit report, which was due in May 2008. In April, Jean-Paul changed his mind. Donnelly withdrew and submitted Jean-Paul's signed “Statement of Decision to Proceed Pro Se.” Pro se, Jean-Paul voluntarily dismissed his appeal and brought an unsuccessful state post-conviction motion, which in Wisconsin precedes direct appeal. Jean-Paul refiled his direct appeal; the appellate court affirmed his conviction. The state appellate court rejected a habeas petition challenging the validity of his waiver of counsel on direct appeal. Jean-Paul claimed to be illiterate. Other petitions and appeals were unsuccessful. In federal court, Jean-Paul sought habeas relief, renewing his claim that he had not knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appellate counsel. The Seventh Circuit affirmed denial of relief, holding that the state court had applied the right standard and reached a reasonable result. View "Jean-Paul v. Douma" on Justia Law

During a consensual search for a stolen television, an old gun that had belonged to West's father was found in the attic. No fingerprints were recovered from the gun and there was conflicting evidence concerning whether West lived in the house. West's attorney unsuccessfully moved to suppress West's statement that he owned the gun, citing West's mental illness, low intelligence, and suggestibility. The judge refused to admit expert testimony to challenge the reliability of his statement. The Seventh Circuit reversed his conviction as a felon In possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g), stating that the reliability of the confession was a question for the jury and that the expert's testimony was relevant and admissible. View "United States v. West" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of multiple counts of health care fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1347, and sentenced to 70 months in prison. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting defendant’s argument that the judge did not address one of his arguments for a lighter sentence—that after committing the fraud he landed an honest job and performed it in exemplary fashion, demonstrating that he has been rehabilitated. The court noted that, had the claims of Medicare reimbursement been paid in full, the government would have been out almost $3.5 million between 2006 and 2011; the government paid the fraudulent enterprise only $1.5 million. The judge correctly calculated a guidelines range of 70 to 87 months, and the sentence she imposed was at the bottom of the range. The judge questioned defendant about his rehabilitation claim and unquestionably was aware of it, but the argument bordered on the frivolous and the sentencing judge is not to be faulted for failing to explain why it was not a compelling reason for going below the bottom of the guidelines range. View "United States v. Woods" on Justia Law

Mitchell, physically a man, psychologically a woman, sought to compel her probation officers to alter conditions of her probation, by allowing her to reside with her family rather than in the men’s homeless shelter, allowing her to dress as a woman, and referring her to treatment programs for her gender dysphoria. The district court denied a preliminary injunction on grounds that she hadn’t complied with rules governing injunctive relief, that the requested injunctive relief was unrelated to the merits of her claims against prison doctors (the only claims that had survived screening of her complaint), and that she had failed to demonstrate either that she was likely to prevail on the underlying claims or would suffer irreparable harm if injunctive relief was denied. While the appeal was pending, Mitchell was returned to custody, after pleading guilty to theft, prostitution, and resisting an officer. The Seventh Circuit dismissed her appeal of denial of an injunction as moot. Mitchell still has claims pending against the doctors, unaffected by the denial of the preliminary injunction, and should she be released from jail during the litigation and again placed on probation she can renew her objections to the terms of her probation. View "Mitchell v. Wall" on Justia Law