One again under People v Aguilar, my client's 1995 conviction for unlawful use of weapons was eligible to be vacated. As expected with such an old case, the clerk and even the States Attorney had diff...iculty finding the file in the vast warehouse belonging to Cook County. After a few months the file was finally located but seemed to be missing almost every single necessary document for the States Attorney's office to make a decision regarding our Petition for Post Conviction Relief. I even contacted the head clerk to see if there was any microfilm or microfiche available for the case and of course there was nothing. But luckily for my client, the States Attorney was very reasonable and stated that based on my filing and the lack of information from the file, he saw no reason to object to the Petition and the judge granted it today. My client now has a clean record.
Criminal defense
94CRXXXXX
Sep 16, 2021
OUTCOME: Murder Conviction SEALED!
This is certainly one of the happier “victories” to report on. In brief, my 45 year old client has a murder conviction dating back to 1994. This unfortunate turn of events transpired when my client w...as only 18 years old and a gang member, as many young men in the Chicago area are at that age. It came to light that my client did not actually cause the death of the victim, but was involved in a fight that broke out and thus he was convicted under the law of accountability, which some people would refer to as being an accessory to the crime and is thus held accountable for the actions of the others involved.
Cut to today. The States Attorneys Office understandably objected to our Petition to Seal this murder conviction. A hearing was held and I was able to submit a proffer to the judge by way of argument. To put it succinctly, I informed the judge that since my client’s release from the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) in 2007, he not only completed his mandatory supervised release (parole) with no issues but has maintained gainful employment ever since. He is the head of the household for his family and just wanted to be able to move on with his life and not have this conviction hanging over his head forever.
The presiding judge took all of this into account and granted the Petition to Seal.
Criminal defense
Unlawful Use of Weapon Conviction Vacated
Dec 23, 2020
OUTCOME: Conviction Vacated
Case: 96C4#0XXXXX - Gun Conviction Vacated
Outcome: Gun Conviction Vacated, Case Dismissed
Description: Wonderful Christmas present today for my client. Back in 1996 he was convicted on a felony ...charge of Unlawful Use of Weapon. This has obviously been hindering him from advancing with regard to employment. Having handled quite a few of these cases, I was able to inform him that under People v. Aguilar, I could most likely have his felony conviction out of the Maywood Courthouse vacated and the case dismissed. It took a few court dates for the clerks to find his 25 year old file but today we were victorious! My client can now expunge his one felony case and go on with his life having no criminal background whatsoever.
Criminal defense
06C3#0XXXXX - Gun Conviction Vacated
Jan 24, 2020
OUTCOME: Gun Conviction Vacated, Case Dismissed
Luckily a potential client contacted me about expunging or sealing his 2006 conviction for gun charges. Realizing that this case was prior to the court decision of People v Aguilar, which declared the... current at-the-time gun statute unconstitutional in 2013, I informed him he might be eligible to vacate his conviction entirely and have the case dismissed.
Of course he was interested. This one took a bit more time due to the age of the court file - the clerk had a difficult time locating the file in storage, as did the Cook County State's Attorney assigned to the post-conviction unit. Long story short, today the State's Attorney agreed with my Motion for Post-Judgment Relief and my client's conviction was vacated and the case was dismissed. He is now eligible to expunge the matter and live life with no felony conviction on this record. New lease on life!
Domestic violence
19 OP 756XX
Nov 06, 2019
OUTCOME: Stalking/No Contact Order DENIED
This one is a bit more interesting, a bit of a love triangle in which I represent the Respondent in the fight against a Stalking/No Contact Order. There were a few allegation in the Petitioner's Petit...ion but the most "damaging" one is that it was alleged that my client came to the Petitioner's house, banged on the door, and after receiving no answer, proceeded to kick the door a few times. She then went around to the side of the house and kicked a window and broke a screen. Well, turns out the Petitioner has a video door bell camera which did in fact show my client committing these acts of aggression. So maybe an uphill battle you think? Not really.
Here comes the triangle... Petitioner at the time of these incidents is married to a gentleman, we'll call him "Bob". Turns out, while Bob is married to the Petitioner, he meets the Respondent on some online dating site. It gets better. Bob gets the Respondent pregnant and she has his baby. The Petitioner eventually becomes aware of this but as of today's date, they are still married and live in the same home. The child lives with the Respondent but now attends school in the same neighborhood in Chicago as the Petitioner and Bob. And because it is Chicago, the child must live in the neighborhood, so the Respondent now moves into their neighborhood.
Petitioner is unhappy with this situation and starts looking at Bob's text messages with Respondent and causing issues at home. Long and short of it, Respondent did not come to the house to see Petitioner, she came to see Bob. So there is no stalking. Petitioner also attempted to bring up other incidents that were not laid out in her Petition, which is impermissible in civil practice and all of my objections were sustained as to any other incidents. Petition was denied.
Domestic violence
18 OP 79XXX
Oct 03, 2019
OUTCOME: Stalking/No Contact Order DENIED
More often than not I represent the Respondent in the fight against an Order of Protection or Stalking/No Contact Order, as in this case. Respondent was a 50-something professional stylist that just d...id not get along with her co-worker. Arguments ensued at work and at one point escalated to physical contact. An additional aggravating factor is that the police were called and my client was arrested and charged with battery - which is a criminal misdemeanor, which carries a possible sentence of up to a year in jail if convicted. Obviously my client was not going to take a plea of guilty on the criminal matter and it was set for trial, which with my help she won.
Then came the hearing for the Stalking/No Contact order. What is very important, that many do not understand, is that a Stalking/No Contact order can only be entered if there are at least two instances of stalking or interfering with personal liberties in a certain manner. After testimony from both sides I argued that stalking cannot occur when said allegations occur within the workplace where both parties are employed. It is a legal impossibility. The Court correctly agreed and the Petition for No Contact was denied.
Criminal defense
18 CR 148XX
Sep 25, 2019
OUTCOME: Reduced from Felony to Misdemeanor with No Conviction
Client was charged with FELONY Aggravated Battery with Great Bodily Harm. This charge is a Class 3 Felony and carries a possible sentence of two to five years in the Illinois Department of Corrections... (Prison). In a nutshell, while attending a carnival at a local Chicago high school, the complaining witness (victim) was attacked my multiple individuals who wrestled him to the ground, stomped on his head and kicked him multiple times about the face and body. There was no question as to whether a battery was committed or that great bodily harm was incurred. The victim suffered multiple fractures and contusions to his face and body. Luckily he eventually fully recovered and appeared in court at the trial. Now, the issue is whether or not MY client committed aggravated battery with great bodily harm. There were multiple cell phone videos provided by the state, taken by bystanders with the cell phones, that clearly show my client involved in the altercation. But, my client only entered into the fray at the end of the fight and only kicked the victim 3 times in the legs.
We prepared a mitigation packet for the State's Attorneys Office to review in the hopes of a reducer to a misdemeanor charge of battery, not a felony. The State reviewed the packet and spoke with the victim's mother about a reduced charge. She would not agree and wanted someone to pay for her sons' injuries. Part of the problem is that the other individuals arrested were juveniles and were not on trial with my client in the "adult" court. As such, we had no option other than to go to trial. There was no question that my client committed a misdemeanor battery, but in my mind, it was not a felony.
Just before the trial started, the State's Attorney came to us with an offer of a reducer for a misdemeanor charge but also requested restitution for the victim's medical bills. I discussed the offer with my client and suggested he reject the offer as he was not responsible for the injuries the victim incurred. He agreed and we wen to trial.
At trial, the video was played of the incident for the judge, the victim and another few witnesses testified and at the end of the State's portion of the trial, I made a motion for directed finding stating that the State has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a felony aggravated battery was committed by my client. The judge agreed and granted my motion as it pertained to the felony count and allowed the trial to continue based solely on a lesser included offense of misdemeanor battery. After discussing with my client as to whether he should testify, suggesting he not, he agreed and we rested out portion of the case. Finding of guilty only on a misdemeanor charge. Sentence was 18 months of court supervision, which is NOT a conviction and can be expunged two years after supervision is terminated.
Domestic violence
18 OP 791XX
Jun 11, 2019
OUTCOME: Dismissed
As if often the case, I was contacted by a Respondent in a Petition for Order of Protection matter. The Petitioner made allegations that my client, on more than on occasion, struck her in the head, gr...abbed her about the body and made insulting remarks to her. After a careful review of the file and even interviewing the Petitioner in court, it became clear that her allegations were nothing more than that. My client was adamant about proceeding to a hearing and the Court set a date. At the hearing date, I again spoke to the Petitioner about the case and her chances of prevailing on her Petition. Apparently she took my advice to heart and when the case was called for the hearing, she dismissed the matter and I was able to have the Emergency Order of Protection entered previously vacated.
Domestic violence
19 DV 72XXX
Apr 16, 2019
OUTCOME: Not Guilty
It never helps to lie. My client was charged with assault and domestic battery against her roommate. Allegedly my client got into an altercation with the "victim" when she tried to move her dining ro...om table back into the dining room after the victim moved it. The undisputed facts are that while the victim was shoving the table into my client, my client grabbed a hammer off the table and threatened her with it. The victim claimed that my client also grabber her by the wrist, thus the domestic battery charge. That was the entirety of the allegations. The States Attorney offered my client court supervision, which I conveyed, and after discussing the ramifications of such a plea with my client, she opted for a trial, smart choice. At the trial the victim testified that not only did my client threaten her with the hammer and grab her wrist, she also threw shoes at her, shoved her into the closet clothing organizer AND actually hit her in the midsection with the hammer. None of this was stated to the officer or in his sworn report. Luckily the officer was in court and upon cross examination, confirmed this lack of information and the victim was impeached. At the close of the State's case, I motioned for a directed verdict which was granted. The Court did not believe a word of the victim's testimony after she was caught lying. NOT GUILTY!
Criminal defense
07C5502XXX
Nov 21, 2018
OUTCOME: UUW Conviction VACATED
Another gun conviction successfully vacated under People v Aguilar. Client was convicted and sentenced to 30 months of probation back in 2007. Luckily he came upon my website and realized that his co...nviction qualified for a Motion to Vacate. I filed the proper motion, contacted the Cook County State's Attorney's Office in advance and they had no objection after researching his file. The Motion was granted and he is no longer a convicted felon. Additionally, I filed a Petition to Expunge his record so that neither the conviction nor the initial arrest will appear on a criminal background check.
