People v. Conaway
| Citation | 101 Ill.App.3d 202,56 Ill.Dec. 756,427 N.E.2d 1302 |
| Decision Date | 22 October 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-414,80-414 |
| Parties | , 56 Ill.Dec. 756 PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel A. CONAWAY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Frank W. Ralph, Asst. State Appellate Defender, Robert Agostinelli, Deputy State Appellate Defender, Ottawa, for defendant-appellant.
Gerry R. Arnold, John X. Breslin, State's Attys. Appellate Service Commission, Ottawa, Bruce W. Black, State's Atty., Pekin, for plaintiff-appellee.
The defendant, Daniel A. Conaway, appeals from the order of the Circuit Court of Tazewell County sentencing him, after he had pleaded guilty to two counts of the unlawful delivery of a controlled substance, to two concurrent terms of imprisonment, one of three years and the second of two years. The only issue here raised concerns the sentences imposed and whether the trial court erred by refusing to consider the milder sentence imposed on another person, one Carey Garlock. While Garlock also pleaded guilty to the delivery of controlled substances and his convictions arose from the same ongoing, undercover investigation as that which brought to light the defendant's criminal activity, Garlock and the defendant were not co-defendants charged with the same act of delivery and, therefore, the sentence imposed on Garlock was properly ruled to be irrelevant in this case.
The factual basis for the defendant's guilty pleas differs from that which served as the basis for Garlock's pleas. Charges against both arose from the undercover investigation of Peoria County Deputy Sheriff Michael White, then a Multi-County Enforcement Group (MEG) officer.
In the case against the defendant, it was established that on the evening of December 5, 1978, White drove to the Conaway residence in Delavan, Illinois, after having arranged by telephone to meet the defendant. When White arrived, he was advised by the defendant's wife that he would have to wait a half hour. When the defendant returned, he called a number in Pekin, Illinois and determined that the cocaine was in. They then drove to Pekin to the Steak'N'Shake where White gave the defendant a portion of the purchase amount ($25.00) and the defendant then disappeared. When the defendant returned to the car, he and White drove back to Delavan. After arriving at his home, the defendant placed the substance he had obtained in Pekin on a set of scales. The defendant asked for White's plastic laminated driver's license, took out a portion of the substance and showed Agent White that the scale still indicated that a little bit over a gram of cocaine was left. He then received another $85.00 from White and handed approximately a gram of cocaine to White. That substance was properly cared for by White and transmitted to the Illinois Bureau of Scientific Services for analysis. Mrs. Susan Jones at the Morton Laboratory found that it contained 1.2 grams of a substance containing cocaine.
Six days later White again returned to the Conaway residence, this time for the purposes of purchasing mescaline. On this occasion, he arrived at approximately 4:30 in the afternoon on the 11th of December, and the defendant, the defendant's wife and Agent White all drove to the Pekin Steak'N'Shake. On this occasion, the defendant left the vehicle in the Steak'N'Shake parking lot and returned with the substance, which he then handed to White at 3205 Court Street in Pekin. That delivery was of a purported 3 grams of mescaline. The substance was properly handled by White and subsequently analyzed by Paul Titus of the Maywood Crime Lab who determined that it contained 2.2 grams of lysergic acid diethylamide.
The factual basis for Garlock's guilty pleas follow. On the 19th day of December, 1978, at 32191/2 Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Palmer, 74935
...or Gleckler. Thus, these cases can provide no support for vacatur of defendant's death sentence. [205 Ill.Dec. 518] 202, 204, 56 Ill.Dec. 756, 427 N.E.2d 1302. In sum, we have considered the record of these proceedings in its entirety. We have closely examined defendant's inculpatory statem......
-
People v. Fern
...District of the Appellate Court has reached seemingly contrary conclusions on this issue. Compare People v. Conaway, 101 Ill.App.3d 202, 204, 56 Ill.Dec. 756, 427 N.E.2d 1302 (1981) (affirming a trial court's refusal, in sentencing the defendant, to consider the milder sentence imposed on a......
-
People v. Bien
..." (Emphasis added.) (Palmer, 162 Ill.2d at 491, 205 Ill.Dec. at 517, 643 N.E.2d at 808, quoting People v. Conaway (1981), 101 Ill.App.3d 202, 204, 56 Ill.Dec. 756, 758, 427 N.E.2d 1302, 1304.) The court then distinguished the defendant's cited cases and upheld the defendant's sentence of de......
-
People v. Daniel, 1-91-0845
...previously imposed on other defendants who were convicted of a particular type of crime * * *." (People v. Conaway (1981), 101 Ill.App.3d 202, 204, 56 Ill.Dec. 756, 758, 427 N.E.2d 1302, 1304.) The trial judge is normally in a better position to determine punishment than a reviewing court. ......