IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
October 18, 2010
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
STEVEN JONES, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richard Mills United States District Judge
RICHARD MILLS, U.S. District Judge
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation [d/e 37] entered by U.S. Magistrate Judge Byron G. Cudmore and the Defendant's pro se Motion to Aggrieve an "Unlawful Act" [d/e 36]. Judge Cudmore recommends denying the Motion to Aggrieve an "Unlawful Act" [d/e 36]. Neither party has filed a timely objection to the Report and Recommendation.
The Defendant's Motion raises two issues: (1) the use of a mobile tracking device, and (2) his dissatisfaction with counsel. However, at the motion hearing held on September 21, 2010, the Defendant expressed his desire that Attorney Daniel Fultz continue representing him. As a result, Judge Cudmore denied as moot the portion of the Motion related to counsel. See Report and Recommendation [d/e 37], 6.
Regarding the mobile tracking device, the Court finds the Report and Recommendation persuasive. First, the Defendant's Motion is untimely, because it was filed well after he pled guilty to the offense. See United States v. Smith , - F.3d -, 2010 WL 3258269, at * 5 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing Tollett v. Henderson , 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973)) ("It is true that an unconditional guilty plea typically waives non-jurisdictional defects in the proceedings below.").
Second, this Court has previously held that the traffic stop was supported by both probable cause and reasonable suspicion, independent of the tracking device. See Report and Recommendation [d/e 19]; Text Order of April 6, 2010, entered by Judge Jeanne E. Scott.
Ergo , the hereby Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [d/e 37], and DENIES the Defendant's pro se Motion to Aggrieve an "Unlawful Act" [d/e 36].
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.