People v. Moylan
2025 IL App (3d) 230248-U
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2025Background
- Robert A. Moylan, a licensed counselor, was convicted on seven counts of forgery for creating and delivering false documents that falsely stated clients had completed required court-ordered DUI counseling.
- Moylan was sentenced to an aggregate eight-year prison term after a jury trial; he acted as his own counsel at various points following repeated disputes and withdrawals of appointed and retained counsel.
- Key evidence included undercover eavesdrop recordings of counseling sessions (with the client's consent), and documents seized from Moylan’s offices via search warrants.
- Motions to suppress both the eavesdrop recordings and office-seized evidence were denied; the court also rejected Moylan’s attempts to argue the violation of patient privacy under various state and federal statutes (including HIPAA).
- Moylan appealed, challenging (among other things) the suppression rulings, use of trial testimony, denial of posttrial counsel, the one-act, one-crime rule application, and the sentence’s length.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Moylan's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppress eavesdrop recordings | Evidence lawfully obtained; statutory requirements met. | Recordings unauthorized/lacked probable (reasonable) cause; late notice. | Motion properly denied; order and application were sufficient. |
| Suppress seized evidence (search warrants) | Warrants were specific, for business records tied to alleged crimes. | Warrants were overbroad and violated patient privilege/privacy laws. | Warrants valid and particular; privilege/statutes inapplicable. |
| Admission of testimony from counseling sessions | Testimony relevant to forgery; not prejudicial. | Testimony irrelevant, prejudicial, made defendant appear unlikable. | Any error not prejudicial/structural; not plain error. |
| Denial of posttrial choice-of-counsel request | Moylan repeatedly waived/obstructed right to counsel; counsel exhausted. | Right to counsel violated, counsel improperly denied at sentencing. | No error; refusals were delaying tactic, conflict existed; request denied. |
| One-act, one-crime rule (forgery counts) | Each act of making/delivering was a separate crime. | Only one punishment allowed for each incident. | Separate acts support separate convictions; no violation. |
| Excessive sentence | Within statutory range, all factors considered. | Sentence disproportionate, aggravation/mitigation not properly weighed. | Sentence affirmed; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Steidl, 142 Ill. 2d 204 (failure to raise argument at trial results in forfeiture unless plain error applies)
- People v. Calgaro, 348 Ill. App. 3d 297 (reasonable cause for eavesdropping is synonymous with probable cause)
- People v. Cregan, 2014 IL 113600 (standard for review of motions to suppress)
- People v. King, 66 Ill. 2d 551 (one-act, one-crime rule articulated)
- People v. Horrell, 381 Ill. App. 3d 571 (separate acts of making and delivering forgeries support separate convictions)
- People v. Angarola, 387 Ill. App. 3d 732 (making and delivery of forged documents are separate acts)
- People v. Stacey, 193 Ill. 2d 203 (reviewing courts cannot reweigh sentencing factors absent abuse of discretion)