sorry about this but that was part 1 here is part 2
I was sentenced to 300 hrs community service and 500 dollars in fines.
I waited my attorney to file an appeal. He said he would.
I waited 2 weeks to talk to him and he still hadn't filed and acted like he wouldn't. so knowing that there is a 30 day limit. On 5-3-11 i went to the clerk and file an appeal and motion to reconsider. They also didn't want to file , but i was persistent. However when they filled the appeal the filed it as "Correspondence regarding appeal on file. (cc)" This cost me 45 dollars
Apparently someone in the clerks office call the public defender or by CHANCE the public defender filled a motion to reconsider latter that same day.
I thought i would get copies of transcripts but haven't, and haven't heard from my attorney It also appears that the appeal hasn't been filed or something because there has been no correspondence regarding it but a date for reconsideration is set for 7-1-11.
At this hearring the judges said that there was some procedural erre and he was goint to vacait my sentence. He then said that he was going to reinpose it deny my motion to reconsider, and instruck the circuit clerk to file an appeal and preepair transcripts for free.
Not once did my attorney say anything about this blantent perjury by this officer.
On 7-19-11 i filled Application to Sue or Defend an an Indigent Person and Motion to Reconsider Newly Acquired Evidence.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT
FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF ILLINOIS
MACON COUNTY, ILLINOIS
)
CHAS BURNS )
)
Plaintiffs )
)
) 2010 TR 010630 D 001
vs. ) NO. 2010 TR 010631 D 001
) 2010 TR 010632 D 001
) 2010 TR 010633 D 001
)
People of State of Illinois )
)
Motion To Reconsider Newly Acquired Evidence
1) That at time of trial transcripts were unavailable to myself.
2) That the trial Court found defendant indigent on 9-29-2010.
3) That I am currently still Indigent
4) That the Transcripts of CITY OF DECATUR ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING 8/20/2010 were acquired on 5-2-2011.
5) That the testimony of Robert Hull was in part or hole perjured testimony.
6) That all testimony made by Robert Hull on 4-8-2011 be stricken from record.
1). That at the time of the trial of this cause, the defendant did not have access to the facts herein presented and that same could not be brought to the attention of this Court at the time of the trial of this cause, and which facts might very well have altered the opinion of this Court as to the authenticity and the credibility of the prosecuting witnesses' statement.
2). I was found indigent on 9-29-2010 by The Honorable Judge Diamond as court records shown.
3). I have been laid off work from caterpillar for 18 months and am currently without a drivers license to return to the work place. I currently live with my mother and receive 117 dollars per week from unemployment.
4). If it pleases the court to admit into evidence City Of Decatur Administrative Hearing of August 20, 2010 in part herein and attached in hole as evidence.
5). Robert Hull testified at trial on 4-8-20121 that he witnessed myself peddling this bicycle when turning onto Eldorado St. from the stoplight at Van Dyke. Robert Hull had Previously testified under oath on 8/20/2010 on my cross examination "At that point I wasn't looking at your pedals. I was watching you making the turn". Transcripts of CITY OF DECATUR ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING 8/20/2010 in part,
pg.4 line 12 HEARING OFFICER POWERS: Okay. Please raise
your right hand. The reporter will swear you in.
(Witness duly sworn.)
OFFICER ROBERT HULL,
called as a witness herein, having been first duly
sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. WAKS:
pg. 7 line 6 Q. And did you continue to see that the bicycle
was being operated by its motor rather than by its
pedals?
A. Yes. It was all motor.
pg.8 line 16 Q. And it is your opinion that this vehicle
would fall under the classification of a motor
vehicle because of the speed of the vehicle?
A. Yes. According to the AVC, it was -- if a
vehicle is over 30 miles an hour, it's considered
like a moped. So it is subject to licensing and
insurance and -- as well as requiring a driver's
license to operate.
pg. 9 line 2 HEARING OFFICER POWERS: Mr. Burns, any
questions you'd like to ask Officer Hull?
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. BURNS:
Q. At any time did you see the pedals -- me
pedaling the bicycle when I proceeded from the
stoplight specifically?
A. At that point I wasn't looking at your
pedals. I was watching you making the turn.
MR. BURNS: That's the only question.
pg. 15 line 1 MR. BURNS: The only thing that I have issue
with is the fact that while the officer is able to
remember the exact speed that I was attaining, how he
got my attainment, where he was sitting on Van Dyke,
in what parking lot, what cross-sections it was, and
the law that he's enforcing pertaining to this
bicycle, he was not able to remember whether or not I
pedaled the bike when I started out from the
stoplight to turn left onto Eldorado from Van Dyke.
This bicycle in question will not move from
a stop unless it is pedaled. The engine will die and
it will not move. The speed that the bicycle can
attain is not in question when pedaling is used.
It's only in question from a stop with a motor and solely a motor as the law sites, solely powered by a
motor.
pg. 16 line 12 MS. WAKS: Just real quickly. I think
Officer Hull's testimony has been mis- -- it's been
described, I think, inaccurately. He didn't say he
couldn't remember whether or not Mr. Burns was
pedaling or not when he left the -- from the
stoplight turning onto Eldorado. He said he wasn't
looking at the pedals. So it wasn't a question of
whether or not he can remember that specific
situation. He does remember. He didn't pay
attention to that issue. He said he wasn't looking
at his feet. He wasn't looking at the pedals. I
think Mr. Burns wants to play a little bit with words
and what he believes the statute means. But it's clear that this vehicle was obtaining a speed of 35
miles an hour as Officer Hull has testified. And
it's clearly a motor vehicle in this situation.
6). The government's use of perjured evidence to secure a conviction violates the due process clause . SEE, e.g., Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959); Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U.S. 213 (1942) Mooney v . Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (1935). This is true even when the Government lacks definitive knowledge that the testimony will be false. SEE, e.g. Hovey v. Ayers, 458 F.3d 892,916 (9th Cir. 2006)(Due process violation occurs if prosecution "knew or should have known that the testimony was actually false").
WHEREFORE, I respectfully request that all testimony by Robert Hull be stricken from the trial transcript.
It is black letter law that the Government's knowing use of false evidence, or the failure to correct false evidence, violates Due Process. Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269 (1959). "To prevail on a Napue claim, the petitioner must show that '(1) the testimony (or evidence) was actually false, (2) the prosecution knew or should have known that the testimony was actually false, and (3) ... the false testimony was material.' In this case weather or not the bicycle was powered solely by the motor is one of the requirements that must be met for the 20 mph limit. 625 ILCS 5/1-140.10 new, 625 ILCS 5/1-140.15 new, 625 ILCS 5/1-146, 625 ILCS 5/11-1516 new. A low-speed electric bicycle as a 2 or 3-wheeled device with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts (one horsepower), whose maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 miles per hour. "Hovey v. Ayers, 458 F.3d 892, 916 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Hayes v. Brown, 399 F.3d 972, 984 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc)). As the foregoing authority indicates, the State need not have actual knowledge that the testimony is false; it is enough if the prosecution had reason to know. For purposes of deciding whether false testimony requires mistrial or reversal, "the fact that testimony is perjured is considered material unless failure to disclose it would be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." United States v. Bageley, 437 U.S. 667, 680 (1985).
On 7-25-11 I filled proof of my comunity service hours with the court and have paid the fine months ago.
On 7-26-11 The states attorney filled a Motion to Strike Defendant's Motion of July 19, 2011 and was givven a hearing date of 8/12/2012 at 01:30 in courtroom 2A.
Ok now this judge has not given me a hearing date for my motions of 7-19-11 yet and this states attorney has gotten her hearing date the same date she filled it. I called the court and they said that i wont get a court date tell the judge rules on my motion to sue as poor person.
Ok why the heck is this court date to strike my motion on 8-12-12? Is this a typo and will this be of use to me if it is and they have this hearring on 8-12-11 without me?
I know that the state is going to try to get the motion to reconsider stricken and her reasing will probably be that there was a motion to reconsider allready. Which was denied by the judge. Whick my attorney let go by without mentioning the police perjury. That is why i included the city hearing testamony in my motion on 7-19-11.
The court docket for this case can be found here
http://court.co.macon.il.us/cgi-bin/...%20&LitNum=001
I am currently unemployed and have been denied disability for psychophrenia.
The reason that i have lost my license is for possession of factious identification due to this disability. With no license and no means of transportation to find a job i find myself destitute with no means to pull myself up.So any type of help would be appreciated.
thank you for your time and consideration.
Chas Thanh Burns

