People v. Crutchfield
| Decision Date | 07 July 2014 |
| Docket Number | NO. 4-12-1143,NO. 4-13-0924,4-12-1143,4-13-0924 |
| Citation | 2014 IL App (4th) 121143 -U |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SHANE S. CRUTCHFIELD, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
NOTICE
This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
¶ 1 Held: The appellate court (1) found the trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion for leave to file a successive postconviction petition and (2) vacated the fines imposed by the circuit clerk and remanded for the imposition of applicable fines by the trial court.
¶ 2 In April 2006, a jury found defendant, Shane S. Crutchfield, guilty of unlawful possession of cannabis and unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. In June 2006, the trial court sentenced him to prison. This court affirmed his convictions and sentences. In June 2008, defendant filed a postconviction petition, which the trial court summarily dismissed. On appeal, this court reversed and remanded for second-stage proceedings. In May 2010, the State filed a motion to dismiss defendant's postconviction petition. In August 2010, the trial court granted the State's motion to dismiss. This court affirmed. In July 2012, defendant filed a pro se motion for leave to file a successivepostconviction petition, which the trial court denied. In September 2013, defendant filed a second motion for leave to file a successive postconviction petition, which the court also denied.
¶ 3 On appeal, defendant argues the trial court erred in denying him leave to file a successive postconviction petition. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand with directions.
¶ 5 In July 2005, the State charged defendant by information with unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver with a prior unlawful-possession-of-a-controlled-substance conviction (720 ILCS 570/401(a)(2)(A), 408(a) (West 2004)), unlawful possession of a controlled substance with a prior unlawful-possession-of-a-controlled-substance conviction (720 ILCS 570/402(a)(2)(A), 408(a) (West 2004)), and unlawful possession of cannabis with a prior unlawful-possession-of-a-controlled-substance conviction (720 ILCS 550/4(d) (West 2004)). The State also charged codefendant Brandi Hefley with various unlawful-possession offenses. Defendant and codefendant pleaded not guilty.
¶ 6 In April 2006, defendant and codefendant were jointly tried before a jury. After opening statements but before the first witness, defense counsel made an oral motion in limine, stating, in part, as follows:
¶ 7 Decatur police sergeant Randy Sikowski testified he initiated a drug investigationat 2540 East Olive Street on April 15, 2005. While conducting surveillance, Sikowski observed defendant going in and out of the house "on a daily basis." Sikowski also saw a "high volume of traffic" going into the house, and the visitors would only stay two or three minutes before leaving.
¶ 8 Decatur police detective Christopher Copeland testified he was working as a patrol officer on July 7, 2005, when he went to a residence at 2540 East Olive Street in Decatur. There, he observed a three-foot-tall cannabis plant growing in a green bucket behind the garage. Copeland and another officer secured the residence while a search warrant was obtained.
¶ 9 Decatur police detective Richard Hughes testified he participated in the search of the residence. He testified to several items recovered in the house, including 62.5 grams of cocaine (exhibit No. 1), a bag with cocaine residue (exhibit No. 2), a man's sock that contained cocaine (exhibit No. 3), 16.5 grams of cocaine (exhibit No. 4), packaging containing cocaine (exhibit No. 5), 54.5 grams of cannabis found in a dresser drawer (exhibit No. 6), a "muscle" T-shirt that the cannabis had been wrapped in (exhibit No. 7), $213 in United States currency found in the dresser drawer (exhibit No. 8), $945 in United States currency found in a glass or plastic bank inside the house (exhibit No. 9), 3.9 grams of cannabis and packaging material found on a bedroom dresser (exhibit No. 10), documents taken from the residence (exhibit No. 11), a set of digital scales (exhibit No. 12), a set of sandwich bags with empty Baggies alongside them (exhibit No. 13), plastic bottles containing protein-type mixes (exhibit No. 14), 5.3 grams of cannabis and packaging material located just inside the front door on a small table (exhibit No. 15), "numerous" Baggies with cannabis residue in them found in a trash can (exhibit No. 16), as well as other items.
¶ 10 Detective Hughes testified the documents in exhibit No. 11 contained, inter alia,Illinois identification cards for defendant and Hefley and numerous other items addressed to them at the Olive Street address. Hughes spoke with Hefley, and she stated she had lived at 2540 East Olive Street for approximately six months with her boyfriend, defendant.
¶ 11 At the end of the first day of trial, the trial court raised the issue of the admissibility of a gun and mentioned case law stating a gun may be relevant in a drug-dealing case. Defense counsel objected, claiming the gun was not found at the residence with the drugs. Moreover, counsel believed "the purpose of having the gun sitting there on the desk in front of the jury [was] dirtying up [his] client." The court did not make a ruling on the gun's admissibility. On the second day of trial, the State told the court the gun was recovered from a storage unit on Woodford Street. The court excluded testimony about the gun.
¶ 12 Decatur police officer Edward Root testified as an expert witness in drug distribution. He stated narcotics dealing is a "cash-and-carry business," and drugs are bought with cash as well as stolen items like stereo equipment, televisions, and guns. Drug dealers use digital scales to weigh the product and sandwich Baggies to package the drugs. Protein powders are often used as a cutting agent, i.e., to dilute the cocaine but increase the amount of the product in an attempt to maximize profits. Root stated drug dealers often use multiple addresses to "hide and confuse law enforcement," as well as to protect against having their narcotics stolen. Drug dealers also place property and valuables in the names of friends or relatives to prevent seizure of the assets by law enforcement. Based on his training and experience, Root opined the drugs found in this case were intended for distribution based on the amount of cocaine, the presence of scales, and the use of sandwich Baggies.
¶ 13 Michael Cravens, a forensic scientist with the Illinois State Police, testified exhibit No. 6 contained 43.3 grams of plant material containing cannabis. Exhibit No. 1contained 60.7 grams of a chunky, white material containing cocaine. Exhibit No. 4 measured 15.3 grams of a substance containing cocaine. Exhibit No. 22 was 150.9 grams of a white powder containing cocaine. Exhibit No. 24 was 61.7 grams of a white material containing cocaine. Exhibit No. 26 was 101 grams of a white material containing cocaine.
¶ 14 Brandi Hefley testified on her own behalf. She stated defendant had been her boyfriend and she stayed at the East Olive Street residence. She also stated several other males stayed at the residence. She neither possessed drugs at the residence nor sold any drugs at that location.
¶ 15 Defendant exercised his constitutional right not to testify. Following closing arguments, the jury found defendant guilty of unlawful possession of cannabis and unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. The jury also found Hefley guilty of unlawful possession of cannabis and unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver.
¶ 16 In May 2006, defendant filed a posttrial motion, arguing, inter alia, the display of the gun on the evidence table in full view of the jury was prejudicial. In June 2006, the trial court denied the motion. Thereafter, the court sentenced him to 40 years in prison for unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver with a prior unlawful-possession-of-a-controlled-substance conviction. The court also imposed a concurrent term of eight years in prison for defendant's conviction of unlawful possession of cannabis with a prior unlawful-possession-of-a-controlled-substance conviction. Defendant filed several postsentencing motions, which the court denied. Defendant appealed, and this court affirmed his convictions and sentences. People v. Crutchfield, No. 4-06-1078 (Jan. 23, 2008) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23).
¶ 17 In June 2008, defendant filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Act) (725 ILCS 5/122-1 to 122-8 (West 2006)) and set forth multiple issues therein. In the first allegation of error, defendant claimed he was deprived of his constitutional rights to a fair trial and due process when the jury was exposed to the highly prejudicial and inadmissible gun without admonition. In his second claim, defendant alleged his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move for a mistrial after the trial court determined the gun was inadmissible. In the third claim, defendant alleged appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise these two issues in his direct appeal.
¶ 18 The trial court dismi...
To continue reading
Request your trial