People v. Miller

• Citation: 448 Ill.Dec. 142,2020 IL App (1st) 163304,175 N.E.3d 1052
• Decision Date: 12 June 2020
• Docket Number: No. 1-16-3304,1-16-3304
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel MILLER, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

2020 IL App (1st) 163304
175 N.E.3d 1052
448 Ill.Dec. 142

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Samuel MILLER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1-16-3304

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Sixth Division.

JUNE 12, 2020

James E. Chadd, Patricia Mysza, and Linda Olthoff, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Chicago, for appellant.

Kimberly M. Foxx, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, Brian K. Hodges, and David B. Greenspan, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

JUSTICE CUNNINGHAM delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

448 Ill.Dec. 145

¶ 1 Following a jury trial in the circuit court of Cook County, the defendant-appellant, Samuel Miller, was convicted of delivery of a controlled substance and sentenced to six years' imprisonment. The defendant now appeals, alleging that (1) the State failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, (2) the State made numerous improper remarks during closing arguments, and (3) he was denied his right to counsel during posttrial proceedings. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County but remand the case for a new hearing under People v. Krankel , 102 Ill. 2d 181, 80 Ill.Dec. 62, 464 N.E.2d 1045 (1984), with newly appointed counsel.

175 N.E.3d 1056

448 Ill.Dec. 146

¶ 2 BACKGROUND

¶ 3 The State charged the defendant with delivery of a controlled substance. On July 21, 2015, a jury trial commenced, and the following evidence was presented.

¶ 4 Chicago police officer Hamilton¹ testified that she worked as an undercover buy officer for the narcotics division. On January 15, 2015, she drove undercover in a covert police vehicle to the area around 111th Street and Michigan Avenue in Chicago. Her team targeted that area to intercept drug deals.

¶ 5 At 10:53 a.m., Officer Hamilton observed the defendant, whom she identified in court, standing near the corner of 111th Street and Michigan Avenue. She drove up to the defendant, lowered the passenger side window, and yelled out to him. The defendant then walked over to her vehicle and asked her "How many do you want?" Officer Hamilton answered him, and the defendant entered the vehicle, sitting in the rear passenger seat. Officer Hamilton estimated that the defendant was seated less than two feet away from her during their entire interaction.

¶ 6 Inside the vehicle, the defendant handed Officer Hamilton two bags of heroin in exchange for $20 in prerecorded funds. The defendant then exited the vehicle, and Officer Hamilton drove away from the scene. She estimated that the entire transaction lasted less than two minutes. She testified that she focused on the defendant's facial features and clothing during the transaction. After she drove away, Officer Hamilton radioed her team to communicate that there had been a positive transaction. She relayed the defendant's physical description and his last known location.

¶ 7 Shortly afterwards, Officer Hamilton received word from her team that they had detained the defendant. She drove to the location where the other officers had detained the defendant, which she believed was 100 West 111th Street, two blocks away from the location of the undercover buy. She drove by the defendant slowly, at "no more than ten feet away," and positively identified him as the same individual who had just sold her the heroin. Officer Hamilton then returned to the station and inventoried the heroin.

¶ 8 Chicago police officer Edward Daniels testified that, on January 15, 2015, he worked as a surveillance officer in an undercover operation near the area of 11055 South Michigan Avenue. Officer Daniels explained that about 10 or 12 police officers were involved in the operation that day. His responsibility was to maintain surveillance of the undercover buy from a covert vehicle and relay information to the other team members over the radio.

¶ 9 Officer Daniels was about 30 feet away from the defendant when he saw Officer Hamilton's covert vehicle approach. He saw the defendant enter Officer Hamilton's vehicle for about a minute to a minute and a half. The defendant then exited Officer Hamilton's vehicle but remained at the same location. Officer Daniels continued to surveil the defendant. About a minute after Officer Hamilton drove away, the defendant entered an unknown red vehicle. Officer Daniels could not see what happened inside the red vehicle once the defendant entered it. The defendant remained in the red vehicle for about a minute and then exited it.

¶ 10 Officer Daniels then radioed the enforcement officers with a description of the defendant. Officer Daniels saw the enforcement officers stop the defendant near the location of the undercover buy and later identified him as the same individual

175 N.E.3d 1057

448 Ill.Dec. 147

who had entered Officer Hamilton's vehicle. Officer Daniels testified that he never lost sight of the defendant from the time he approached Officer Hamilton's vehicle until the enforcement officers detained the defendant.

¶ 11 Chicago police officer Charlie Johnson testified that he participated in the undercover operation on January 15, 2015, as an enforcement officer. Officer Johnson and his two fellow enforcement officers sat in a police vehicle about two blocks east of the buy location. He was able to monitor the buy over the radio. Eventually, another officer provided Officer Johnson a description by radio regarding a person to be detained. Officer Johnson and his fellow enforcement officers then detained the defendant on 111th Street, although he could not remember the exact location on 111th Street. He testified that his team usually worked on the west side of Chicago and he lacked "extensive knowledge" of the area in which they were working that day. After reviewing the arrest report to refresh his recollection, he testified that he detained the defendant at 100 West 111th Street. Officer Johnson could not recall the individual's description that was provided to him over the radio but testified that there was "no way" he would have stopped the defendant unless he matched the description.

¶ 12 After Officer Hamilton positively identified the defendant as the individual who had sold her the heroin, Officer Johnson arrested and searched the defendant. No drugs were found on the defendant. Officer Johnson did recover $59 cash from him, but they were not the prerecorded funds that Officer Hamilton had used to buy the heroin. Officer Johnson testified: "From my experience, if the target has had contact either with another buyer or seller, sometimes that money is passed off as change or it's given to another person."

¶ 13 On cross-examination, Officer Johnson confirmed that the arrest report indicated the time of arrest was 10:58 a.m. He estimated that he interviewed the defendant for one to three minutes before arresting him.

¶ 14 Martin Palomo, a forensic chemist at the Illinois State Police Forensic Science Center testified that he tested the two bags of heroin that Officer Hamilton had purchased. The results of the test indicated that each bag contained heroin weighing a total of 0.9 grams. On cross-examination, Palomo testified that he did not submit the bags for fingerprint or DNA analysis.

¶ 15 The State rested. The defendant filed a motion for a directed verdict, arguing that there were significant factual discrepancies between the officers' testimony regarding the timeline and location of the arrest. The State responded that such discrepancies "go[ ] to the credibility" of the officers. The trial court agreed, stating that "[i]t's the purview of the jury to determine that." The trial court accordingly denied the motion.

¶ 16 The defendant then rested without testifying or presenting any evidence.

¶ 17 Before the parties began closing arguments, the trial court instructed the jury that "[w]hat the lawyers say during argument is not evidence and should not be considered by you as evidence." The court further told the jury that it would instruct them on the law following closing arguments.

¶ 18 During closing arguments, the State highlighted Officer Hamilton's testimony identifying the defendant as the individual who sold her the heroin. The State also argued that Officer Hamilton's testimony was supported by Officer Daniels, who testified that he saw the defendant enter Officer Hamilton's vehicle. The State

175 N.E.3d 1058

448 Ill.Dec. 148

said: "We know we have the right guy. We pay our officers to identify people. That is their job."

¶ 19 In response, defense counsel argued that the police officers had "made a mistake" and "arrested the wrong person." Defense counsel focused on the timeline from the officers' testimonies. Specifically, she argued that it was impossible for the defendant to: meet Officer Hamilton at 10:53 a.m., sell her the heroin, conduct another drug deal in the red vehicle, walk a third of a mile, be detained, and then be arrested at 10:58 a.m. Defense counsel claimed...