Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Williams

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Third District

January 23, 2014

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MARK WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the 10th Judicial Circuit, Peoria County, Illinois, Circuit No. 11-CF-341, Honorable Timothy M. Lucas, Judge, Presiding.

Presiding Justice Lytton and Justice McDade concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION

WRIGHT, JUSTICE

¶ 1 Defendant, Mark Williams, was convicted of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver (720 ILCS 570/401(d)(i) (West 2010)), and sentenced to 5 ½ years in prison. Defendant appeals, arguing: (1) the State failed to prove him guilty of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) certain fines and fees were improper. We remand for the court to correctly calculate the fines, fees, assessments, costs and other charges ordered by the court as part of defendant's sentence and otherwise affirm.

¶ 2 FACTS

¶ 3 Following a search of defendant's residence and person, the State charged defendant with unlawful possession of a controlled substance (720 ILCS 570/402(c) (West 2010)) and unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver (720 ILCS 570/401(d)(i) (West 2010)). The cause proceeded to a jury trial.

¶ 4 At trial, Peoria police officer Erin Barisch testified that, while executing a search warrant, the officer discovered a plastic bag containing five small foil bundles of heroin in defendant's pocket. Barisch collected the bundles and asked defendant how he had obtained the contraband. Defendant told Barisch he often bought and "re-up[ped]" with heroin.[1] Barisch testified that defendant said he was selling the bundles for $10 each.

¶ 5 At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found defendant guilty of unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. The court sentenced defendant to 5 ½ years in prison. The court awarded credit for one day served on March 11, 2011, and for the days served beginning on July 27, 2011, until his sentencing date of March 15, 2012.

¶ 6 On March 15, 2012, the prosecutor reminded the court that two mandatory charges should be ordered by the court, specifically a $1, 000 drug assessment and a $100 lab analysis fee. When sentencing defendant, the court stated defendant would "be required to pay the appropriate assessments and fines including: $1, 000 drug assessment; appropriate mandatory fees, costs, and other assessments." On the same date, the court signed a written order requiring payment of "all statutory fines, fees, costs & assessments" subject to the applicable monetary credit for time served.

¶ 7 The record contains a certified "Case Payments" document dated June 1, 2012, revealing defendant was expected to pay 21 separate charges, totaling $1, 654. These charges included a $200 deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) analysis fee, an $18 prescription pill and drug disposal assessment, and a $1 Criminal Justice Information Projects Fund fine, but did not include a street value fine. In addition, the clerk's sheet did not include the $1, 000 drug assessment or the $100 lab analysis fee mandated by statute and requested by the State.

¶ 8 Defendant appeals on the basis that his conviction should be set aside. Alternatively, although unchallenged in the trial court, defendant requests this court to correct various monetary charges certified by the deputy clerk.

¶ 9 ANALYSIS

¶ 10 Defendant first contends the State failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. The State contends the evidence was sufficient. When presented with a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, it is not the function of this court to retry defendant; rather, the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Collins, 106 Ill.2d 237 (1985). A conviction will only be overturned where the evidence is so unreasonable, improbable, or unsatisfactory as to justify a reasonable doubt of defendant's guilt. People v. Smith, 185 Ill.2d 532 (1999).

ΒΆ 11 Here, the evidence established that the drugs found on defendant's person were bundled in five separate packages. Defendant told Barisch he often buys and "re-ups" with heroin. Barisch explained to the jury that the term "re-up" involves purchasing and then distributing the drugs to others. Further, Barisch testified that defendant stated he was going to sell the packages of heroin for $10 each. Based on this record, we conclude the evidence was sufficient to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.