People v. Phillips, 3-00-0510.

CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois
Citation259 Ill.Dec. 885,326 Ill. App.3d 157,759 N.E.2d 946
Docket NumberNo. 3-00-0510.,3-00-0510.
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joanne Y. PHILLIPS, Defendant-Appellant.
Decision Date19 November 2001

759 N.E.2d 946
326 Ill.
App.3d 157
259 Ill.Dec.
885

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Joanne Y. PHILLIPS, Defendant-Appellant

No. 3-00-0510.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.

November 19, 2001.


Donna K. Kelly (argued), Office of the State Appellate Defender, Ottawa, for Joanne Y. Phillips.

John X. Breslin, Deputy Director, Rita Kennedy Mertel (argued), State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, Ottawa, Terence M. Patton, State's Attorney, Cambridge, for the People.

Presiding Justice HOMER delivered the opinion of the court:

The defendant, Joanne Phillips, was convicted by a jury of unlawful possession of a

759 N.E.2d 947
controlled substance with intent to deliver (720 ILCS 570/401(c)(2) (West 1998)), unlawful possession of a controlled substance (720 ILCS 570/402(c) (West 1998)), unlawful possession of cannabis (720 ILCS 550/4(a) (West 1998)), and driving while license suspended (625 ILCS 5/6-303 (West 1998)). The court sentenced the defendant to four years' imprisonment

On appeal, the defendant argues that (1) the admission into evidence of lab reports violated her constitutional right to be confronted with the witnesses against her, and (2) her mandatory prison sentence violated the principles of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

In the early morning hours of November 5, 1999, a Henry County sheriff's deputy, Glenn Hampton, stopped the defendant's vehicle on Interstate 80 because the vehicle had veered off the roadway. Hampton asked the defendant for her license, registration, and proof of insurance. The defendant produced a driver's license and Hampton escorted her to his squad car, while the defendant's two passengers remained in her vehicle. The defendant indicated that she thought her license was suspended after which Hampton received radio confirmation that the defendant's license was indeed suspended. Hampton placed the defendant under arrest for driving with a suspended license and returned to the defendant's vehicle.

After asking the two passengers to step out, Hampton searched the interior of the vehicle. Underneath the driver's seat near the transmission hump, Hampton discovered wrapped in a paper towel 25 individual plastic bags of a white substance that appeared to be crack cocaine. In the front ashtray, he found a half-burnt marijuana cigarette.

Hampton walked back to his squad car and showed the defendant the substance he recovered from her vehicle. She asked what it was. After Hampton read the defendant her Miranda rights, he returned to her vehicle to speak with the passengers. Hampton then walked back to his squad car and told the defendant that the passengers denied knowledge of the cocaine. He told the defendant that they needed to discuss the matter and then noticed the defendant becoming teary-eyed. The defendant told Hampton that she needed money to pay bills and feed her children. She said that the two passengers in her car did not know anything about the cocaine and that she had picked it up in Chicago. Hampton transported the defendant to the county jail and again read the defendant her Miranda rights. The defendant signed a written statement which was consistent with the oral admissions she made to Hampton.

At trial, the State introduced the defendant's written statement and an Illinois State Police Lab Report signed by Denise Hanley, a forensic scientist, which revealed 5.4 grams of off-white chunks containing cocaine and 7.1 grams of untested, off-white chunks. A second report signed by Robert Streight, an employee of the Henry County Sheriff's office, revealing .1 gram of a plant material containing of cannabis, was also introduced.

In her defense, the defendant testified that Hampton badgered her into confessing. She indicated that Hampton informed her that if she cooperated the judge would be notified, she would be home with her kids the next day, and Hampton would not notify the Department of Children and Family Services. In addition, the defendant testified that only when Hampton threatened to charge her with

759 N.E.2d 948
drug trafficking and possession of a stolen vehicle and indicated that she would never see her children again, did she admit knowledge of the drugs. The defendant admitted signing the written statement, but testified at trial that it was untrue. She maintained that she did not know of any drugs in the car except the marijuana and she had told the passenger smoking the marijuana to stop. At trial, Hampton denied making any promises to the defendant to induce her confession

The defendant was convicted of all counts. At sentencing, the trial judge indicated that he would have placed the defendant on probation, but that the legislature had stripped him of his discretion to do so. The defendant was sentenced to four years' imprisonment for the unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. The court vacated the unlawful possession of a controlled substance count, gave the defendant credit for time served on the cannabis count, and entered judgment on the conviction for driving while license suspended. The defendant appeals from her convictions and sentences.

ANALYSIS

I. Lab Reports

Relying significantly on the recent case of People v. McClanahan, 191 Ill.2d 127, 246 Ill.Dec. 97, 729 N.E.2d 470 (2000), the defendant argues that because an element of her alleged drug-related offenses was proven through lab reports, she was denied her sixth amendment right to be confronted by the witnesses against her.

Section 115-15(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/115-15 (West 1998)) provides that a state police lab report with a supporting affidavit is considered prima facie evidence of the contents, identity, and weight of the substance being analyzed in prosecutions for violation of either the Cannabis Control Act (720 ILCS 550/1 et seq. (West 1998)) or the Illinois Controlled Substances Act (720 ILCS 570/100 et seq. (West 1998)). Section 115-15(c) of the Code further provides that the report will not be prima facie evidence if the accused or her attorney demands the testimony of the person signing the report by serving the demand upon the State's Attorney within seven days of receipt of the report. 725 ILCS 5/115-15(c) (West 1998).

Our supreme court held in McClanahan that section 115-15 of the Code is unconstitutional because it impermissibly requires a defendant to take a procedural step to secure his constitutional right of confrontation and does not require a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of this right. McClanahan, 191 Ill.2d at 140, 246 Ill.Dec. 97, 729 N.E.2d at 478. The defense attorney in McClanahan objected to the admission of the report at trial but had...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • People v. Clendenin, 2-07-0359.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • August 18, 2009
    ...... People v. Phillips, 215 Ill.2d 554, 566, 294 Ill.Dec. 624, 831 N.E.2d 574 (2005). The ultimate question of whether the facts require the evidence to be suppressed, ......
  • The People Of The State Of Ill. v. Clendenin, 2-07-0359.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • August 18, 2009
    ...... . People v. Phillips, 215 Ill.2d 554, 566, 294 Ill.Dec. 624, 831 N.E.2d 574 (2005). The ultimate question of whether the facts require the evidence to be suppressed, ......
  • People v. Rowell, 4-04-0481.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 15, 2006
    ......Phillips, 217 Ill.2d 270, 288, 298 Ill.Dec. 759, 840 N.E.2d 1194, 1205 (2005). .         As we noted in this case, defendant did present and ......
  • People v. Phillips, 99568.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • December 1, 2005
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT