People v. Alcala
| Decision Date | 07 June 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 1-90-3198,1-90-3198 |
| Citation | 248 Ill.App.3d 411,618 N.E.2d 497 |
| Parties | , 187 Ill.Dec. 906 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elyria ALCALA, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Office of the State Appellate Defender, Chicago (Todd Avery Shanker, of counsel), for defendant-appellant.
John M. O'Malley, State's Atty., County of Cook, Chicago (Renee Goldfarb, Joan F. Frazier, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee.
Following a jury trial, defendant, Elyria Alcala, was convicted of delivery of a controlled substance (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch 56 1/2, par. 1401(a)(2)(C)) and was sentenced to a 13 year prison term.
We affirm.
Defendant's conviction was obtained with the aid of Octavio Villegas, who had agreed to cooperate with the Cook County State's Attorney's office of narcotics investigation following his own arrest for drug possession. The conviction arose from a transaction to sell cocaine in which Michael Trejo, a Cook County State's Attorney Investigator, posed as purchaser.
Villegas testified that he met defendant in a bar at 93rd Street and Commercial Avenue. He had seen defendant before because she worked at the bar as a bartender. On April 22, 1989, Villegas approached defendant at the bar and told her that he "knew some one who would buy." Defendant replied that she "had some" and "to bring" the person who would buy. No specific amount of drugs was discussed. The next day, Villegas called defendant and then contacted police regarding the sale.
At 1:30 p.m., Villegas and Trejo arrived at defendant's home located at 9825 South Exchange Avenue, in Chicago. Villegas entered the home first and then signaled for Trejo to come in. Villegas introduced defendant and Trejo. Defendant and Trejo then went into another room, where Villegas could not hear what was being said.
Trejo testified that he arrived at defendant's home with Villegas. Villegas entered the home first while Trejo waited by the car. After a couple of minutes, Villegas motioned for Trejo to come in. Villegas introduced Trejo to a woman, identified as defendant, sitting on a couch. Another woman sat on the couch, but Trejo was not introduced to her. Defendant stood up, shook hands with Trejo, and instructed him to follow her to another room.
Trejo followed defendant to what appeared to be a woman's bedroom. Defendant sat on the bed and asked Trejo how much "coca" he wanted. Trejo explained that the term "coca" was Spanish slang for cocaine. Trejo responded that he wanted "a half a key." Again, Trejo explained that the term was slang for one half of one kilo of cocaine. Defendant then reached into a drawer and pulled out a "little brown cassette box." The box contained a clear, plastic "baggie" which defendant handed to Trejo. Trejo asked if the bag contained "a half a key," and defendant assured him that it did, but that if he was "shorted," he was to return, and she would make up the difference. Trejo continued to examine the substance in the bag which he stated was "kind of rocky." Defendant told him that the "stuff" came from Waukegan and not from "the neighborhood." Trejo then asked her how much the drug would cost to which defendant replied $16,500. Trejo told her the price was too high and offered only $16,000. Defendant turned this counteroffer down, indicating that she had to "make a profit." Trejo then agreed to the price and asked her to come outside to his car for the money. Defendant refused and told Trejo that she would wait there. Trejo asked her again to come out to his car, and again, defendant refused. Trejo ultimately capitulated to defendant's request.
Trejo went out to his car and opened his trunk, which indicated to Trejo's backup surveillance units that the deal was "going down." Trejo reentered the home and with defendant, exchanged the money for the drugs. At that point, the backup units entered the residence and arrested them.
Chicago police officer Robert Navigato was part of the surveillance team assigned to monitor Trejo's drug purchase. Navigato watched Trejo and Villegas arrive together at the residence and later enter the home separately. When Navigato saw Trejo open the trunk of the car, he and his fellow surveillants entered the home. As he entered the home, he saw a young Hispanic woman seated on the couch in the living room with Villegas. He then saw Trejo exiting from a bedroom followed by defendant who was inside the bedroom doorway. Navigato arrested defendant and read her the Miranda warnings from his police handbook.
Navigato described the bedroom from which defendant and Trejo emerged as a female's room because perfumes, jewelry, and powders were displayed on the dresser. When Navigato told defendant that she was under arrest for selling drugs, she denied that she had done anything wrong and that she had any knowledge of drugs. Defendant agreed to sign a consent to search form, which was read into evidence. After she signed the form, Navigato informed her that she had just sold drugs to an undercover police officer. Defendant then began to cry and stated that she was "sorry" that she ever "got involved." Navigato then asked her if there were any more drugs in the house. Defendant pointed to the nightstand in the room, in which Navigato subsequently found two more packets of cocaine.
Defendant was then taken to the kitchen and interviewed by a state's attorney investigator. Defendant admitted to the sale and stated that she had obtained the cocaine from her ex-husband, Jose Romero.
Navigato then resumed his search of the residence and discovered two "Ohaus" scales in a closet in defendant's bedroom. Navigato explained that these scales were "triple beam," very accurate, and inevitably found at drug raids because of their popularity with drug dealers. Navigato also found $900 in U.S. currency on the dresser in defendant's bedroom. In defendant's nightstand, Navigato discovered "snow seals," papers used to package cocaine in quantities of one gram or less.
Defendant was taken to the police station at 35th Street and Normal Avenue where she signed a Miranda release form. During her interview, defendant admitted that her "end" of the transaction was to be $500 and a ticket to Hawaii to visit her daughter.
The State also presented the testimony of two other officers assigned to provide backup to Trejo. Investigator William P. Walsh of the Cook County State's Attorney office entered defendant's residence after she had been placed under arrest. Walsh observed officers discovering the scales in the bedroom. Walsh also observed defendant being interviewed at the kitchen table. Defendant told her interrogators that she was "going to have to pay the price" for her actions. At that time, two of defendant's grandchildren came into the house. Defendant stated that she did not want to be led away in handcuffs in front of the children. Walsh agreed to the request and did not use handcuffs until defendant was placed into the squad car. As defendant exited her home, she told her grandchildren to "learn a lesson from this," "not to do what" she "had done" and that she "was sorry." Defendant then turned to the other woman in the apartment, who was "crying," "screaming" and "carrying on" and told her to "shut up," "quit crying," and to "take care of the kids." Defendant told Walsh that the woman was not involved in the transaction.
Chicago police officer Raymond Golnick also testified to the events which occurred during the raid. Villegas was Golnick's informer. Although the raiding team was not aware of the exact amount of drugs to be purchased, they were aware that they were "going" for "at least a half a kilo." Golnick was present when defendant signed the consent to search form in her bedroom. Golnick observed Navigato discover the packets of cocaine in defendant's nightstand. He also was present when the scales and cocaine packaging papers were found.
Golnick interviewed defendant at the police station. There, defendant told him that the drugs had been given to her by her ex-husband, Jose Romero. She did not mention either "Armando" or "Lupe." Defendant stated that she was to receive $500 and a plane ticket to Hawaii for her participation in the purchase.
The parties stipulated that if called to testify, Art Kruske, a Chicago police chemist, would state that he had analyzed the white substance purchased by Trejo from defendant, utilizing the proper and correct testing procedures. In Kruske's expert opinion, the bag contained 495.1 grams of cocaine. The two packets discovered in the nightstand contained 59.82 grams of cocaine. The cocaine was found to 87.4 percent pure.
Defendant asserted an entrapment defense and sought to establish that she had been induced to participate in the transaction by both Villegas and a young woman named Lupe. Defendant resided at her home with her three grandchildren, Lupe, and Lupe's boyfriend, Armando. Defendant had met Lupe a year prior to her arrest. Lupe had recently undergone surgery and asked defendant if she could stay with her at her house.
It was defendant's testimony that on April 19, 1989, she discovered Lupe in tears because one of Lupe's children was "going blind" and Lupe needed money for the surgery. Lupe explained that Armando and Villegas "had a buyer" for drugs. When defendant asked what that had to do with her, Lupe responded that they needed defendant to act as an interpreter. Defendant refused to help. Defendant stated that she had never been involved with drugs and "couldn't handle this."
Over the next few days, Lupe continued to cry and ask defendant for her assistance. Again, defendant refused to help. On April 22, Lupe and defendant went out to eat dinner. At the restaurant, Villegas came over to their table and Lupe informed him that she "would meet [him] later." Villegas then left....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Robinson
......776, 497 N.E.2d 1138. . See also People v. Alcala, 248 Ill.App.3d 411, 425-26, 187 Ill.Dec. 906, 618 N.E.2d 497 (1993) (court can consider amount of drugs in excess of minimum for sentencing range and its potential impact on society); People v. McCain, 248 Ill.App.3d 844, 852, 187 Ill.Dec. 573, 617 N.E.2d 1294 (1993) ("not improper per se for ......
-
People v. Ringland
...input from other law enforcement agencies. The conduct of the SAFE unit stands in stark contrast to cases such as People v. Alcala , 248 Ill. App. 3d 411, 187 Ill.Dec. 906, 618 N.E.2d 497 (1993), and People v. Sequoia Books, Inc. , 150 Ill. App. 3d 211, 103 Ill.Dec. 539, 501 N.E.2d 856 (198......
-
In re ESTATE OF Bozenna MICHALAK
...safeguard protects a criminal defendant's right of cross-examination. 343 Ill.Dec. 388934 N.E.2d 712404 Ill.App.3d 90 People v. Alcala, 248 Ill.App.3d 411, 422, 187 Ill.Dec 906, 618 N.E.2d 497, 505 (1993), citing Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 316-17, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 1110, 39 L.Ed.2d 347, 35......
-
People v. Rivas
...... People v. White, 249 Ill.App.3d 57, 188 Ill.Dec. 319, 618 N.E.2d 889 (1993). Once a defendant presents some evidence, however slight, to support an entrapment defense, the [302 Ill.App.3d 433] State bears the burden to rebut the entrapment defense beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Alcala, 248 Ill.App.3d 411, 187 Ill.Dec. 906, 618 N.E.2d 497 (1993). The question of entrapment is usually one to be resolved by the trier of fact, and it will not be disturbed on review unless the reviewing court finds that a defendant was entrapped as a matter of law. People v. Tipton, 78 Ill.2d 477, ......