NO. 4-05-0683 Filed 1/16/07
IN THE APPELLATE COURT
OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from
Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of
v. ) Champaign County
LEAVELL D. ALLEN, ) No. 03CF2215
Defendant-Appellant. )
) Honorable
) Heidi Ladd,
) Judge Presiding.
_________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE COOK delivered the modified opinion of the
court:
Defendant, Leavell D. Allen, was charged with unlawful
delivery of a controlled substance for delivering 1 gram or more
but less than 15 grams of heroin (720 ILCS 570/401(c)(1) (West
2002)). Defendant pleaded not guilty but was convicted in May
2005 after a jury trial. The trial court sentenced defendant to
a 12-year prison term. He appeals. We affirm in part, vacate in
part, and remand with directions.
I. BACKGROUND
At defendant's jury trial, confidential informant
Charles Duckworth testified for the State. Duckworth, a con-
victed felon and former drug addict, was facing two counts of
unlawful delivery of a controlled substance. After Duckworth was
arrested on the pending drug charges, he decided to work with the
police in exchange for a recommendation of leniency. In 1994,
Duckworth was convicted of aggravated battery with a firearm and
aggravated discharge of a firearm and was sentenced to 11 years'
imprisonment. In 1990 and 1991, Duckworth was convicted of
criminal trespass to land, criminal sexual abuse, and criminal
damage to property.
On November 11, 2003, Duckworth, under the supervision
of Officers Jack Turner and Jaceson Yandell, bought heroin from
defendant and his codefendant, Kelvin Conerly. Duckworth knew
Conerly from high school and had heard Conerly sold drugs.
According to Duckworth, Conerly had given him a phone number with
which to contact him if Duckworth ever wanted to buy heroin.
Duckworth told the police about the number. On November 11,
2003, after installing an audio recording device, an officer
dialed the number, and Duckworth spoke with Conerly. After two
recorded phone calls, Duckworth arranged to buy two grams of
heroin from Conerly at the "usual spot" and for a prearranged
price.
After the second phone call, the police searched
Duckworth and his vehicle, fitted Duckworth with a concealed
video camera, and gave Duckworth $400 to buy two grams of heroin.
Duckworth drove to the location. The police had Duckworth in
their view the entire time. After 15 to 20 minutes, Conerly
pulled up in his car with defendant seated in the passenger seat.
Duckworth testified that he walked over to Conerly's car, spoke
with him, and passed the money to defendant, who then passed it
- 2 -
to Conerly. Conerly put the money in his pocket. Defendant
handed Duckworth the drugs. Duckworth then walked back to his
car and spoke briefly with someone on his way. Duckworth drove
to a prearranged location, handed the officers the drugs, and had
the camera removed. The officers searched Duckworth and his
vehicle and returned his confiscated personal belongings.
On cross-examination, Duckworth stated that his mother
is really sick and his biggest fear is that she will die while he
is in prison. He agreed to the controlled buy because he wanted
to stay out of prison as long as possible to be with her.
During the buy, Duckworth wore a camera, but the camera only
showed Duckworth reaching in the car and pulling his hand back
out. The video did, though, show defendant sitting in the
passenger seat. On redirect examination, the State played the
portion of the tape that showed Conerly's car pull up, Duckworth
put his hand in the car and pull it out, and Duckworth walk to
get into his car.
Officer Turner testified for the State that he sets up
controlled buys wherein a confidential source, usually someone
with a criminal background, arranges to purchase a controlled
substance. The police search the confidential source, give that
person money, allow the sale to proceed, collect the controlled
substance, and search the source again. The confidential source
is watched the entire transaction. Turner was working with
- 3 -
Duckworth. Turner corroborated Duckworth's version of the phone
calls to Conerly. Turner also stated that while Duckworth drove,
Turner remained behind him in a marked covert city-owned vehicle.
When Duckworth got close to the location of the buy, Turner
stopped following, and Officer Matthew Henson watched him from a
parked van near the location of the buy. Henson watched
Duckworth as he left the location of the buy and until Turner
began following Duckworth to the prearranged site for meeting
after the buy. At that location, Turner received the heroin and
searched Duckworth and his vehicle again. The State then played
the tapes of the phone calls.
The parties stipulated that a forensic scientist
determined that the substance Duckworth gave the police contained
heroin. Officer Yandell testified that he assisted Turner in
supervising the controlled buy, and he corroborated Turner's
version of the buy. Officer Henson testified that he watched
Duckworth after Turner stopped following, and he observed the
actual transaction. Henson's testimony corroborated Duckworth's
version. Henson could not, though, see what actually transpired
inside the car and could not identify defendant.
The State rested after Henson's testimony. Defendant
motioned for a directed verdict, which the trial court denied.
The defense rested. Defendant then motioned for directed ver-
dict, which the court again denied. While discussing jury
- 4 -
instructions, defendant's attorney objected to the instruction on
accountability, arguing that the State presented no evidence of
accountability. The State countered that the accountability
instruction applied to Conerly, who was accountable for defen-
dant's action of handing the substance to Duckworth. The court
found sufficient evidence to justify giving the instruction and
overruled defense counsel's objection.
In closing arguments, the State argued that drug
dealers make easy money for just a few minutes of work consisting
of driving to a location and exchanging the drugs. The State
then argued the following:
"That's why Kelvin Conerly did this deal.
Leavell Allen went along with it. Maybe un-
wittingly, but he helped out on the deal.
Maybe he got something for his participation
from Kelvin Conerly. Maybe he didn't. We
don't know that. But we do know that he
helped out in this deal by handing over the
drugs."
Later in closing argument, the State read the jury instruction on
accountability and argued the following:
"Now, how can two people be convicted of one
drug delivery? It's by accountability. When
the right hand and the left hand are working
- 5 -
together to accomplish something, both are
accountable. And both can be found guilty
for one drug delivery, because they both
helped out on it. And that's what we have
here. We have Kelvin Conerly setting the
price with Chuckie Duckworth, giving Chuckie
Duckworth the number, taking the calls from
Chuckie Duckworth, setting up the meet loca-
tion, driving to the meet location, at the
meet location accepting the money from Chuckie
Duckworth. During the deal, we have Leavell
Allen taking the money from Chuckie Duckworth,
handing it over to Kelvin Conerly, and then
Leavell Allen handing over the heroin itself.
Both worked together, during the commission.
They were both aiding each other to get this
accomplished."
After closing arguments, the jury was given instruc-
tions and commenced deliberations. The jury then returned a
guilty verdict.
Defendant's motion for a new trial was denied. After a
sentencing hearing, defendant was sentenced to 12 years' impris-
onment and ordered to pay a local anticrime fee of $10, a
genetic-marker-grouping-analysis fee of $200, a street-value fine
- 6 -
of $400, a lab fee of $100, and a mandatory assessment of $2,000.
Defendant was given credit for 300 days served prior to sentenc-
ing and credit for $1,500 against his fines. Defendant's motion
to reconsider sentence was also denied. This appeal followed.
II. ANALYSIS
Defendant argues that the State misstated the law when
it referred to defendant as "unwittingly" helping with the drug
deal as this allowed the jury to believe it could convict defen-
dant solely because he was present in the vehicle. Defendant
further argues he is entitled to an additional credit of one day
for time served prior to sentencing and an additional credit of
$5 toward his fines. Finally, defendant argues the imposition of
the following fines were in error: the spinal-cord-injury fee,
the local anticrime fee, and the penalties imposed by the circuit
clerk.
The State responds that the State's use of the word
"unwittingly" referred to defendant's financial motives, not his
intent to commit the crime, so the State did not misstate the
law. Further, the State argues that defendant waived the issue
and neither plain error nor ineffective assistance of counsel
should allow review as the evidence in this case was not closely
balanced. The State further argues that the sentence credit was
correct as the date of sentencing should not be included in the
calculations. Regarding the $5 spinal-cord-injury fine, the
- 7 -
State notes that the constitutionality of collecting the fine
from drug offenders is the primary issue of People v. Jones, No.
101996, now pending before the Illinois Supreme Court. Pending
the outcome of the case, the State argues that the $5 fine is
constitutional. Finally, the State concedes that the $10 local
anticrime fee should be vacated as a void order because no
statutory authority authorizes such a fine when a defendant is
sentenced to prison, and the State concedes that the mandatory
fees and fines added by the circuit clerk should be vacated
because the trial court did not impose them.
A. Closing Argument Comment
Defendant claims he was denied his right to a fair
trial by the State's misstatement of the law, which allowed the
jury to convict him without finding that the State had proved his
intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the offense
beyond a reasonable doubt. The State counters that the prosecu-
tor's statement properly addressed defendant's financial motives
for helping Conerly when he used the word "unwittingly." Fur-
ther, even if the use of the word was error, the State argues the
issue is waived because defendant failed to object and the trial
court properly instructed the jury.
We agree that the prosecutor's use of the word "unwit-
tingly," while perhaps misleading out of context, was not a
misstatement of the law. The prosecutor used the word "unwit-
- 8 -
tingly" immediately after discussing Conerly's financial motive
to commit the crime. Because defendant passed the money to
Conerly, the prosecutor could not say whether defendant received
a portion of the money and was motivated by the money. The
prosecutor, therefore, acknowledged that defendant's participa-
tion may not have been motivated by financial gains when he used
the word "unwittingly." The fact that defendant may not have
received a portion of the money does not negate the fact that he
actively participated in the transaction and through his action
intended to aid in the commission of the offense.
The State never suggested that the jury could convict
defendant based solely on the fact that he was present in the
vehicle. In closing arguments, the State defined accountability
then described how Conerly and defendant worked together to
commit the crime. Conerly set up the drug deal and drove to the
location. Defendant took the money, passed the money to Conerly,
and then passed the drugs to Duckworth. The State never argued
that defendant's presence in the car alone or his presence in the
car coupled with his knowledge of what was about to happen was
enough for the jury to convict. The State emphasized defendant's
active participation in the commission of the crime. When it
used the word "unwittingly," the State merely acknowledged that
it could not prove that defendant was motivated to participate
because of the money.
- 9 -
Because the State did not misstate the law in closing
arguments, defendant was not deprived of his right to a fair
trial, we affirm his conviction.
B. Sentence Credit
Defendant next argues that he is entitled to an addi-
tional day of credit for time served and an additional $5 credit
toward his fines because the day of sentencing should be included
in calculating the number of days he spent in custody. The State
contends that when a defendant is remanded to the Department of
Corrections (DOC) on the day of sentencing, the day of sentencing
should be excluded in calculating time spent in custody pre-
incarceration. See People v. Foreman, 361 Ill. App. 3d 136, 157,
836 N.E.2d 750, 768 (2005) (holding that a defendant will not be
credited for the day of sentencing when he is remanded to DOC
that day); People v. Stewart, 217 Ill. App. 3d 373, 377, 577
N.E.2d 175, 177 (1991) (denying credit for the day the defendant
was remanded from county jail to DOC); People v. Leggans, 140
Ill. App. 3d 268, 271, 488 N.E.2d 614, 616 (1986) (denying credit
to a defendant for the day he was transported from county jail to
DOC because DOC presumably credited the defendant for that day).
Citing People v. White, 237 Ill. App. 3d 967, 605
N.E.2d 720 (1992), defendant argues that courts have always
credited defendants with time spent in custody on the date of
sentencing. In White, though, the State conceded that the
- 10 -
defendant was entitled to an additional day's sentencing credit
by calculating the days between September 17 to September 20,
1991, and December 12, 1992, to January 16, 1992. Earlier in the
facts of the case, the court stated that the defendant was
sentenced on January 16, 1992. Commenting only on the fact that
the days agreed to by the defendant and the State do in fact add
up to 40 rather than 39 days, the court granted an additional
day's sentencing credit. The opinion never discusses, though,
whether defendant was remanded to DOC on the day defendant was
sentenced. White does not, therefore, directly contradict the
cases cited by the State.
In this case, the record is clear that defendant was
remanded to DOC on the day of sentencing. Prior case law indi-
cates that a defendant should not be given credit for the day he
is remanded to DOC. Defendant, therefore, is only entitled to
300 days and $1,500 toward his fines, which is what he was
granted.
C. Fines and Fees
1. Spinal-Cord-Injury-Charge
Defendant claims the $5 spinal-cord-injury fee is
unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of Illinois has held the
charge at issue is a fine and is constitutional. People v.
Jones, No. 101996, slip op. at 28-29 (December 21, 2006), ___
Ill. 2d ___, ___, ___ N.E.2d ___, ___.
- 11 -
2. Other Fines and Fees
The State concedes, and we agree, that the trial court
had no statutory authority to impose a local anticrime fee when a
defendant is sentenced to prison. See People v. Beler, 327 Ill.
App. 3d 829, 837, 763 N.E.2d 925, 931 (2002). The State further
concedes that the court never mentioned the following mandatory
fines: $5 spinal-cord-injury-research fee, $100 trauma-center-
fund fine, $240 surcharge, and $4 surcharge. While these fees
are mandatory, the sentencing statute requires that they must be
imposed by the court. 730 ILCS 5/5-9-1.1(c) (West 2004) (spinal-
cord fee); 730 ILCS 5/5-9-1.1(b) (West 2004) (trauma-center
fund); 730 ILCS 5/5-9-1 (West 2004) (surcharges); see also
People v. Wisotzke, 204 Ill. App. 3d 44, 49-50, 561 N.E.2d 1310,
1313 (1990); People v. Rohlfs, 322 Ill. App. 3d 965, 971-72, 752
N.E.2d 499, 503-04 (2001). We have already determined that the
spinal-cord fee is unconstitutional. As for the remaining fines,
because the imposition of such fines is a judicial function
beyond the authority of the clerk, we remand for proper imposi-
tion of the fines by the trial court. See Wisotzke, 204 Ill.
App. 3d at 50, 561 N.E.2d at 1313; Rohlfs, 322 Ill. App. 3d at
972, 752 N.E.2d at 504.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court's
- 12 -
judgment, except we vacate the fines imposed by the clerk, and
remand for proper imposition of the fines by the court.
Affirmed in part and vacated in part; cause remanded
with directions.
APPLETON and TURNER, JJ., concur.
- 13 -