Our client was charged with possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance in the United States District Court of the Northern District of Illinois. He was charged with having a loaded firearm in his home while being a convicted felon and a member of a notorious Chicago street gang, as well as selling approximately 2 kilos of cocaine to various individuals in the Chicago area. Federal agents raided his home and found a loaded Glock handgun and cocaine hidden in his home. Upon finding the firearm and the controlled substance, they arrested him. Continue reading
Our client was charged with the Distribution of a Controlled Substance Analog in the United States District Court of the Northern District of Illinois. He was charged with selling a compound very similar to a scheduled controlled substance, in the form of synthetic marijuana. A young man bought synthetic marijuana in a shop in Aurora, which had been produced by our client’s former business partner in the offense. The young man consumed the synthetic marijuana despite warnings not to do so, and drove his car at 90mph in a residential area before crashing into a house and being killed on impact. According to the deceased victim’s mother, he was a wonderful young man and she could not recall him ever doing anything wrong. Continue reading
Our client was charged with the unlawful possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver, in Grundy County located in Morris, Illinois. He was charged with having approximately 50 lbs and/or 23 kilos of marijuana in several bags in his motorhome as he drove east on I-80, passing through Morris, Illinois, on his way home to New York. An Illinois State Trooper pulled him over on the highway and there was a Cabella search, meaning that a trained K-9 police dog did a drug search, also referred to as a “stop and sniff.” The marijuana was located in our client’s vehicle, and he was placed under arrest. Continue reading
Wigell Criminal Defense prides itself on its Holistic Winning Defense Strategies. The firm has represented many clients in a wide variety of criminal charges in the State of Illinois. Wigell Criminal Defense zealously represents their clients. We Win Criminal Defense Cases Other Lawyers Said Were Impossible To Win.
Wigell Criminal Defense (as of 11/2/17) represents clients charged in the State of Illinois of the following crimes/charges:
1. Sex Crimes
2. White Collar Crimes
3. Drug Crimes
4. Violent Crimes
5. Weapons Crimes
6. Property Crimes
7. Other Crimes
1. Sex Crimes
Aggravated Criminal Sexual Assault (720 ILCS 5/12-14)
Attempt Aggravated Criminal Sexual Assault (720 ILCS 5/8-4(11-1.30)
Aggravated Criminal Sexual Abuse (720 ILCS 5/12-16)
Aggravated Criminal Sexual Abuse (Juvenile) (720 ILCS 5/12-16)
Criminal Sexual Abuse (720 ILCS 5/11-1.50)
Attempt Aggravated Criminal Sexual Abuse of a Family Member under 18 (720 ILCS 5/11-1.60 (b))
Criminal Sexual Assault (720 ILCS 5/11-1.20)
Predatory Criminal Sexual Assault (720 ILCS 5/12-14.1)
Sexual Exploitation of a Child (720 ILCS 5/11-9.1)
Possession of Child Pornography (720 ILCS 5/11-20.1)
Aggravated Possession of Child Pornography (720 ILCS 5/11-20.1)
Dissemination of Child Pornography (720 ILCS 5/11-20.1)
Traveling to Meet a Minor (720 ILCS 5/11-26)
Public Indecency (720 ILCS 5/11-9)
Obscenity (720 ILCS 5/11-20)
Indecent Solicitation of a Child (720 ILCS 5/11-6(a))
Grooming (720 ILCS 5/11-25)
Solicitation to Meet a Child (720 ILCS 5/11-6.6(a))
Sex Trafficking (720 ILCS 5/10-9)
2. White Collar Crimes
Continuing Financial Crimes Enterprise (720 ILCS 5/17-10.6(h))
Financial Institution Fraud (720 ILCS 5/17-10.6(c))
RICO (720 ILCS 5/33G)
Theft (720 ILCS 5/16-1)
Forgery (720 ILCS 5/17-3)
Identity Theft (720 ILCS 5/16-30)
Deceptive Practices (720 ILCS 5/17-1)
Mail Fraud & Wire Fraud (720 ILCS 5/17-24)
Computer Fraud (720 ILCS 5/17-50)
Internet Offenses (720 ILCS 5/16-40)
3. Drug Crimes
Drug Trafficking (720 ILCS 570/401.1)
Cannabis Trafficking (720 ILCS 550/5.1)
Unlawful Possession of Cannabis with Intent to Deliver (720 ILCS 550/5(g))
Manufacture or Delivery of Cannabis (720 ILCS 550/5(d))
Unlawful Possession of Cannabis (720 ILCS 550/4(g))
Manufacture and Delivery of Cocaine (720 ILCS 570/401(a)(2))C))
Possession of Cocaine (720 ILCS 570/402(a)(2)(C))
DUI (625 ILCS 5/11-501(A))
Aggravated DUI (625 ILCS 5/11-501(D))
4. Violent Crimes
First Degree Murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1)
Attempted First Degree Murder (720 ILCS 5/8-4(a))
RICO (720 ILCS 5/33G)
Armed Robbery (720 ILCS 5/18-2)
Attempt Armed Robbery (720 ILCS 8/4 (18-2(a)(2))
Aggravated Robbery (720 ILCS 5/18-1)
Home Invasion (720 ILCS 5/19-6)
Aggravated Kidnapping (720 ILCS 5/10-2)
Aggravated Battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3.05)
Aggravated Domestic Battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3.3)
Battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3)
Aggravated Assault (720 ILCS 5/12-2)
Unlawful Restraint (720 ILCS 5/10-3)
Aggravated Unlawful Restraint (720 ILCS 5/10-3.1 (A))
5. Weapons Crimes
Armed Violence (720 ILCS 5/33A-2(a))
Unlawful Use of a Weapon (720 ILCS 5/24-1)
Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon (720 ILCS 5/24-1.6)
Unlawful Use or Possession of a Weapon by a Felon (720 ILCS 5/24-1.1)
Aggravated Discharge of a Firearm (720 ILCS 24/1.2(a)(2))
Defacing the Identification Marks of a Firearm (720 ILCS 5/24-5(b))
6. Property Crimes
Residential Burglary (720 ILCS 5/19-3)
Retail Theft (720 ILCS 5/16-25)
Possession of a Stolen Motor Vehicle (625 ILCS 5/4-103)
Felony Driving on a Suspended/Revoked License (625 5/6-303(a)/(d))
Obstruction of Justice (720 ILCS 5/31-4)
7. Other Crimes
Concealing or Aiding a Fugitive (720 ILCS 5/31-5(a))
Violation of Bail Bond (720 ILCS 5/32-10)
Violation of Probation (730 ILCS 5/5-6-4)
Violation of Mandatory Supervised Release (730 ILCS 5/3-3-9)
Our client was arrested and charged with Methamphetamine Conspiracy and Possession of Methamphetamine Precursor in Dewitt County. Specifically, our client was accused of participating in a Methamphetamine Conspiracy with several other co-defendants. It was alleged her role was to acquire cough medicine from the local pharmacy and provide it to the other co-defendants so they could use the cough medicine to cook Methamphetamine. The arrests stemmed from a lengthy Illinois State Police Drug Task Force Investigation and Surveillance Operation. The client also suffered from serious drug addiction issues. Realizing the complexity and seriousness of her case, the client hired Wigell Criminal Defense to represent her.
After entering the case, the case proceeded to a preliminary hearing. The lead investigator of the Illinois State Police testified at the preliminary hearing. Effective cross-examination by Attorney Jim DiQuattro of WCD at the preliminary hearing revealed multiple weaknesses and inconsistencies in the State’s case. As a result of the weaknesses and inconsistencies exposed by the preliminary hearing, the attorneys of Wigell Criminal Defense immediately began preparing the case for trial.
The State’s Attorney in the case acknowledged the multiple weaknesses in its case and approached the attorneys of WCD with a very interesting proposition. The State offered the client 30 months of Drug Court Probation if she agreed to become a cooperating State witness.
The client acknowledging her drug addiction issue and willingness to accept other conditions, accepted the proposition. Prior to entering the plea, the client with WCD met with the lead investigator of The Illinois State Police for a proffer. A proffer is when the individual participates in an interview with the prosecutor and/or officers of the investigating Law Enforcement Agency. The purpose of this interview is for the individual to provide information to the Prosecution and or/police to assist in their investigation and in this case to help build a case against the co-defendants. At this meeting, the client provided the Investigator with all the information she knew about the Meth Conspiracy and the nature of her role.
The client was placed on 30 months Drug Court Probation and the Class X charge was dismissed. Additionally, the client’s conviction will be vacated upon her successful completion of the Drug Court probation program and certain conditions.
Client was overjoyed with the outcome and was also very dedicated to getting the help she needed to treat her long term drug addiction. The client was grateful for all of the hard work of the attorneys of Wigell Criminal Defense which lead to this extraordinary result. The client will now be able to get the help that she needs to ultimately overcome her drug addiction thus giving her a second chance at life.
When an individual is charged with a crime and awaiting trial, they are subject to pretrial detention. While most people perceive the notion of pretrial detention as being in custody at the county jail, there are other forms of pretrial detention that don’t require an individual to necessarily be incarcerated.
While someone is in custody in jail awaiting disposition of their case, they receive credit for time served in jail for any sentence of prison time imposed by a plea of guilty or finding of guilty. (Ex. A person who serves one year in jail would have that time subtracted from a prison sentence of 2 years thus leaving 1 year). The calculation should be made from the day of the individual’s arrest to the day of the disposition of their case. All individuals in custody of Cook County Jail are eligible for time served credit with a few exceptions ranging from committing a crime while in custody to receiving a natural life sentence.
However, time served can be extended to another form of pretrial detention outside of Cook County Jail. Another form of pretrial detention where an individual could receive credit for time served is known as EHM (Electronic Home Monitoring). EHM is sometimes known to the general public as “House Arrest” or “Home Confinement.” This form of pretrial detention requires an individual to wear an ankle bracelet that monitors their movements. Typically, the individual is confined to their home for the duration of their case. In some instances, the individual is allowed movement outside of the home for limited purposes including going to work, church, doctor’s appointments, ect. This form of pretrial detention is typically governed under the control of the Sheriff’s Department. Being under the supervision of the Sheriff’s Department considers the individual to be “in custody” for the purposes of time served.
This form for pretrial detention should not be confused with GPS monitoring through pretrial services. GPS monitoring requires an individual to wear a GPS monitor on their ankle. The purpose of the GPS monitor allows pretrial to monitor the individual’s movements. A GPS is typically fitted to keep an individual away from a specific person or place that is the subject of the charged offense. The individual however would not be eligible for time served in this situation. Since the GPS monitor is governed by pretrial services, a person is not considered to be “in custody” for these purposes. Since an individual on a GPS is free from any actual detention and their freedom is not “restricted” under the supervision of pretrial services, they are not considered in custody for the purposes of time served.
However, it should be noted that being on EHM does not necessarily guarantee an individual will receive credit for time served. There are exceptions that disqualify an individual from receiving credit for time served on EHM. The main exception to the specific offense the individual is on EHM for. If an offense falls under 730 ILCS 5/5-5-3, then the offense would not qualify for time served credit under EHM. For example, a person on EHM for a pending charge of Criminal Sexual Assault would NOT be eligible for sentencing credit due to the nature of the offense enumerated under 730 ILCS 5/5-5-3.
When someone is on EHM while awaiting trial, they should consult with their experienced criminal defense attorney regarding the issue of time served. This is an important aspect that should be analyzed when evaluating the issue of time served when an individual is considering entering a plea of guilty or evaluating the amount of time a person is facing if they lose at trial. This analysis is critical when determining the course of action to take in that individual’s case and should be conducted in a meticulous and detailed manner.
When an individual has been either convicted of a crime or pleads guilty to a crime and receives a sentence of prison time, the sentence imposed does not necessarily mean that the individual will do the entirety of the imposed sentence. When someone is sentenced to a term of imprisonment, that individual may have options and opportunities to have their sentence reduced while in IDOC (Illinois Department of Corrections).
There are three typical methods than an individual can receive sentencing credit to ultimately have their sentences reduced while serving time in IDOC. The three ways inmates can receive additional sentencing credit at IDOC is through statutory sentencing credit, program sentence credit and supplemental sentence credit. The opportunities for credit are as follows:
Statutory Sentencing Credit: Statutory sentencing credit is credit that is awarded for most types of offenses pursuant to Illinois sentencing Statute. For example, some felony offenses offer day for day credit which basically means a person will serve only 50% of their sentence if they do not have any behavioral or disciplinary issues while incarcerated in IDOC. Other sentences require an individual to serve 75%, 85% or even 100% of their sentence based on good behavior.
Program Sentencing Credit: Program sentencing credit is credit an individual can accrue while serving time in IDOC. Specifically, an individual can obtain additional credit towards their sentence by participating in classes and programs offered by IDOC. These classes can range from cooking classes, GED classes to trade classes. There are also eligibility requirements to qualify for receiving additional sentencing credit from these classes which are classified into three levels:
- Certain offenders are eligible to have 0.5 days of credit per day of classes taken (Ex. 30 days of class =15 days of sentencing credit).
- Other offenders can be eligible for 0.25 days of credit if they don’t meet the requirements of the 0.5 days of credit (Ex. 28 days of class = 7 days of sentencing credit).
- Then certain offenders are ineligible to receive credit for participating in classes but are usually not prohibited from taking the classes.
Eligibility criteria is usually based upon the individual’s disciplinary history and the nature of the offense for which they were either convicted of or plead guilty to. If the individual has a history of disciplinary issues, then they may be disqualified from receiving sentencing credit. If an individual has been convicted of a specific offense, for example first degree murder, then they would not be eligible for any program credit.
Supplemental Sentence Credit: Supplemental Sentence Credit is sentencing credit that an individual could receive at the end of their sentence. This credit is not mandatory and it is at the discretion of IDOC to award this credit to an offender. An individual could be eligible for either 90 days or 180 days off their sentence. The amount of days awarded are based upon the nature of the offense the individual is serving time for. For example, a sentence for Aggravated Criminal Sexual Assault only allows an individual a possible 90 days credit at the end of their sentence due to the nature of the offense. While most offenses are eligible for the supplemental sentence credit, certain offenses may not be eligible such as convictions for first degree murder and domestic terrorism. An offender must have at least served a minimum time of 60 days or as close to 60 days the sentence would allow to be eligible for the credit.
When an individual is imprisoned in IDOC, they should make every attempt to utilize all the opportunities available to reduce their prison sentence. This also gives the individual not only the opportunity for an early release to get back to their loved ones sooner, but it also allows the opportunity for an individual to better themselves in prison. It gives them the opportunity to learn new skills and trades that could be beneficial when re-entering society after release. After the individual is assigned to a prison in IDOC, they should immediately consult with their assigned counselor to determine their eligibility and opportunities for additional sentencing credit.
In Illinois, when someone is either convicted or pleads guilty to a crime, they are subject to the sentencing parameters of that specific crime. When someone is either convicted or pleads guilty, their attorney should make them the aware of the possible sentences and penalties of their specific charge. One concept an individual should be made aware of in regards to sentencing is the concept of consecutive versus concurrent sentencing. When someone is charged with more than one offense or has multiple counts of the same offense, an analysis must be made whether those sentences would run consecutively or concurrently.
Section 730 ILCS 5/5-8-4 in the Illinois Unified Code of Corrections outline all of the offenses in Illinois as to what sentences run consecutive and concurrent. Consecutive and Concurrent are defined as follows:
CONCURRENT sentencing is when someone is convicted of either multiple offenses or counts, that the sentences imposed on each separate charge or count would run AT THE SAME TIME. For example, if someone is convicted of Armed Robbery and Aggravated Kidnapping and receives a sentence for six years on each offense, those sentences would run AT THE SAME TIME. This concept also applies to a person serving a term for a felony and misdemeanor offense at the same time, as well as if the individual is already imprisoned in Illinois or another jurisdiction for another offense unless the offense is consecutive under Illinois law.
CONSECUTIVE sentencing is when someone is convicted of either multiple offenses or counts, that the sentences imposed on each separate charge or count would run one after another. For Example, if an individual is convicted on five counts of Predatory Criminal Sexual Assault and received a sentence for 6 years on each count, those sentences would run one after another thus resulting in the individual serving 30 years in The Illinois Department of Corrections.
Most of the time, consecutive sentencing is mandated by statute and the Judge cannot deviate from mandatory consecutive sentencing. There is also a concept known as permissive consecutive sentencing. The court has discretion impose permissive consecutive sentencing under limited circumstances. Those limited circumstances are as follows:
(c) Consecutive terms; permissive. The court may impose consecutive sentences in any of the following circumstances:
(1) If, having regard to the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and character of the defendant, it is the opinion of the court that consecutive sentences are required to protect the public from further criminal conduct by the defendant, the basis for which the court shall set forth in the record.
(2) If one of the offenses for which a defendant was convicted was a violation of Section 32-5.2 (aggravated false personation of a peace officer) of the Criminal Code of 1961 (720 ILCS 5/32-5.2) or a violation of subdivision (b)(5) or (b)(6) of Section 17-2 of the Criminal Code of 1961 or the Criminal Code of 2012 (720 ILCS 5/17-2) and the offense was committed in attempting or committing a forcible felony.
Sentencing is a very complex legal concept. An individual and their attorney must be aware of all sentencing concepts and parameters in their case. Because the knowledge of consecutive and concurrent sentencing is imperative to how to approach a criminal case. Not having the knowledge of consecutive and concurrent sentencing concepts can have devastating results upon a client’s case. Wigell Criminal Defense has handled many cases involving consecutive and concurrent sentencing for over 40 years. Please don’t hesitate to contact us regarding your case. We are here to help.
In many criminal cases, and certainly with regard to felony cases, a judge will set a bond. In Illinois, ten percent of the stated bond amount must be posted in order for a person to be released from custody. That is, if the judge orders a person held on a $500,000 D-bond (where the D stands for “deposit”), that means that the person must post $50,000 or remain in jail awaiting trial.
For many people, $50,000 is a significant amount of money that cannot be obtained easily or quickly. For some people, $5,000 is a significant amount of money to gather in a short period of time. And for some, $500 is a significant amount of money to come up with. Money is relative, and it all depends on the individual defendant and his or her support group that is marshaling the resources to get these funds together for the purpose of bond.
If your loved one is in custody on a bond that is too high for you to post on their behalf, it is important to contact an experienced criminal defense attorney to do what is called a Motion to Reduce Bond, or a Motion for Bond Reduction.
725 ILCS 5/110-6 states in part, “Upon verified application by the State or the defendant or on its own motion, the Court before which the proceeding is pending may increase or reduce the amount of bail or may alter the conditions of bail bond or grant bail where it has been previously revoked or denied.”
What this means is that bond, once set, is not written in stone. The State may do a motion (that is, make a request) for the bond to be increased or decreased. It is extremely rare for the State to ask for bond to be decreased; they almost always ask for a bond increase. The Judge may examine the bond and increase or decrease it on his or her own motion. The Defendant may also ask for the bond to be increased or decreased – although it would be very rare for a defendant to ask that it be increased, as most defendants in custody are eager to be released.
An experienced criminal defense attorney will make a proper request for the bond to be reduced in a case where it is set too high for the person to be able to post. A proper Motion to Reduce Bond requires a detailed mitigation intake, either with the defendant himself or, if that is not feasible, with a family member or friend that knows the defendant, and is aware of important information about his or her life. Common factors in mitigation, which are used for the Motion to Reduce Bond, include things like education, work history, family, and other community involvement.
Another way to make a strong argument to reduce bond is to make the Court aware of new information that was not made available to the Court during the first bond hearing, when the bond was initially set.
The Motion to Reduce Bond should be written in the proper format and timely filed with the court, allowing for three days’ notice to the State before it can be heard by the Judge. The Judge will typically hear arguments, from both the Defendant and the State, and then make a decision as to whether or not bond should be decreased, or kept the same.
It is very unusual to get the bond reduced by more than half of the initial bond amount. That is, if the bond was originally set at $50,000, it would be very unlikely to get it reduced to less than $25,000.
If a Motion to Reduce Bond has been heard and denied, that does not mean that it cannot be done again. A second Motion to Reduce Bond can be drafted, filed, and heard. However, with each successive Motion to Reduce Bond, its likelihood of success becomes less and less. What is most helpful to additional motions to reduce bond is new information, or a change in the defendant’s circumstances.
So if your loved one is in custody and the bond is too high for him or her to afford, do not lose hope. Hire an experienced criminal defense attorney and request that they file a Motion to Reduce Bond to try to convince the judge to reduce the amount that must be posted.
Last week, Illinois’ Governor signed into law a change in how persons pleading guilty to criminal offenses are admonished. Public Act 82-553 amends 725 ILCS 5/113-4 to require that the court must admonish a defendant pleading guilty to many of the collateral consequences attendant to that plea.
The new law states that “(i)f the defendant pleads guilty such plea shall not be accepted until the court shall have fully explained to the defendant the following: (1) the maximum and minimum penalty provided by law for the offense which may be imposed by the court; (2) as a consequence of a conviction or a plea of guilty, the sentence for any future conviction may be increased or there may be a higher possibility of the imposition of consecutive sentences; (3) as a consequence of a conviction or a plea of guilty, there may be registration requirements that restrict where the defendant may work, live or be present; and (4) as a consequence of a conviction or a plea of guilty, there may be an impact upon the defendant’s ability to, among others (A) retain or obtain housing in the public or private market; (B) retain or obtain employment; and (c) retain or obtain a firearm, an occupational license, or a driver’s license.”
Public Act 82-553 is effective January 1, 2017 and will help eliminate future surprises for those who plea guilty to an Illinois criminal offense.