People v. Warren

• Decision Date: 26 May 2016
• Docket Number: No. 4–12–0721.,4–12–0721.
• Citation: 404 Ill.Dec. 21,55 N.E.3d 117
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Joseph W. WARREN, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

55 N.E.3d 117

404 Ill.Dec. 21

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff–Appellee

v.Joseph W. WARREN, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 4–12–0721.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District.

May 26, 2016.

Michael J. Pelletier, Jacqueline L. Bullard, and Martin J. Ryan, all of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Springfield, for appellant.

Julia Rietz, State's Attorney, of Urbana (Patrick Delfino, David J. Robinson, Denise M. Ambrose, and David E. Mannchen, all of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.

OPINION

Presiding Justice KNECHT

delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Following a May 2012 trial, the jury found defendant guilty of unlawful possession with the intent to deliver a controlled substance, a Class 1 felony (720 ILCS 570/401(c)(2)

(West 2010)) (count I), and unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon, a Class 3 felony (720 ILCS 5/24–1.1(a), (e) (West 2010)) (count II). In July 2012, the trial court sentenced defendant to a 30–year term on count I and a concurrent 10–year term on count II. Defendant appealed, arguing (1) the State failed to produce sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction on count I; (2) he was entitled to a vacation of certain assessments imposed pursuant to his conviction; and (3) he was entitled to additional sentencing credit for time served. In June 2014, we affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded with directions. People v. Warren, 2014 IL App (4th) 120721, ¶ 1, 383 Ill.Dec. 831, 16 N.E.3d 13. Defendant filed a petition for leave to appeal with the Supreme Court of Illinois.

¶ 2 On January 20, 2016, the supreme court denied defendant's petition for leave to appeal but issued a supervisory order (People v. Warren, 399 Ill.Dec. 11, 45 N.E.3d 682 (2016)

(nonprecedential supervisory order)) directing this court to vacate our prior judgment and reconsider our decision in light of People v. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916, 398 Ill.Dec. 22, 43 N.E.3d 932

. In accordance with the supreme court's direction, we vacate our prior judgment and reconsider in light of Castleberry to determine whether a different result is warranted. We again affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand with directions.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 On March 21, 2011, the State charged defendant with unlawful possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance and unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon. The charges arose from a traffic stop and later search of a hotel room rented by defendant.

¶ 5 A. The Traffic Stop

¶ 6 On March 18, 2011, Officer Jeremiah Christian of the Champaign police department, who was assigned to the Community Action Team, observed defendant driving a green Oldsmobile Bravada. Upon recognizing defendant as the driver, Officer Christian “conducted surveillance to see where [defendant] was going.” Officer Christian followed defendant to the Red Roof Inn on Anthony Drive. Officer Christian observed defendant exit his vehicle and enter a guest room at the hotel. Officer Christian then left the area to meet with other members of the Community Action Team.

¶ 7 The team formulated a plan to return to the area around the hotel to continue surveillance on defendant's activities. If defendant was observed leaving the hotel, an officer would follow and wait for defendant to commit a violation of the Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/1–100

to 20–402 (West 2010)). The officers would then stop the vehicle and further their investigation.

¶ 8 Officer Christian returned to the hotel to continue his surveillance. At some point during his surveillance, Officer Christian observed defendant return to the Oldsmobile Bravada. He was accompanied by a white female, later identified as Kimberly Rosas. Defendant drove the vehicle away from the hotel and headed toward Neil Street. Officer Christian went to hotel management to see whether defendant had rented a room at the hotel. Officer Christian learned defendant had been renting a room at the hotel since March 8, 2011. The rental agreement listed only defendant's name. Officer Christian then went to the room and stood watch to ensure nobody entered or left the room. Shortly thereafter, Officer Phillip McDonald observed defendant commit a traffic violation while turning right onto Neil Street and initiated a traffic stop at the intersection of Neil Street and Interstate 74. Several other Champaign police officers, including Katherine Thompson, Marshall Henry, and Robert Sumption, arrived on the scene to provide backup.

¶ 9 Officer McDonald approached the vehicle and asked defendant to shut off the car. He detected an odor of cannabis emanating from the vehicle. Officer Henry also detected the odor of cannabis. Because the officers detected the odor of cannabis, Officer McDonald asked defendant to step out of the vehicle so it could be searched. Defendant responded by attempting to lock the driver's door and reaching for the key still in the ignition. Officer McDonald then reached inside the car and grabbed defendant's arm. Officer Henry assisted Officer McDonald in removing defendant from the vehicle. After the officers removed defendant from the vehicle, a lengthy struggle ensued, and defendant resisted the officers' attempts to place him under arrest.

¶ 10 During this struggle, Officer Sumption asked Rosas whether anything illegal was located inside the car. At first she indicated there was not, but she later informed the officer a gun was in her purse. This prompted Officer Sumption to draw his weapon and point it at Rosas. Officer Sumption relayed this information to the other officers at the scene. Officer Sumption then removed Rosas from the vehicle and placed her under arrest. She was escorted to the backseat of Officer Thompson's squad car. Officer Sumption removed the gun from Rosas's purse and determined the gun was loaded with a magazine containing six rounds of .25–caliber ammunition. He also determined no rounds were in the weapon's chamber. While sitting in the backseat, Rosas told Officer Sumption defendant carried the purse containing the handgun to the vehicle.

¶ 11 B. Rosas's Postarrest Interview

¶ 12 As Officer Thompson escorted Rosas to her police car, she asked Rosas whether she had anything “crotched,” meaning concealed within her undergarments or inside her vaginal or anal cavity. Rosas stated she did not. While seated in the back of the police car, Rosas told Officer Sumption that defendant carried the gun in her purse to the car. Rosas told Officer Sumption approximately half an ounce of crack cocaine was located in the hotel room. Rosas was then transported to the Red Roof Inn to confirm the location of the room in which she and defendant had been staying.

¶ 13 Officer Thompson transported Rosas to the Champaign police department to speak with Officer McDonald. After being informed of and waiving her Miranda rights (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966)

), Rosas stated she had a current addiction to crack cocaine. Officer McDonald inquired about the gun recovered during the traffic stop. Rosas stated defendant had the gun in his waistband until Officer McDonald initiated the traffic stop, when defendant placed the handgun in Rosas's purse.

¶ 14 Rosas then expressed her concern over going to jail. After Officer McDonald assured Rosas she would not go to jail, Rosas stated, “I'll do anything that you want me to do. I'll be helpful, you know, as long as I don't go to jail.” Rosas then detailed the drug-dealing operation defendant was running from the hotel room. Defendant would bring large quantities of crack cocaine to the room and break it down for sale. He used a black scale to assist him in breaking down the product. Defendant would then package the individual pieces for sale. Once packaged for sale, defendant would place the individually wrapped pieces of crack cocaine in a plastic bag and “go deal.”

¶ 15 Rosas believed defendant was bringing at least four ounces of crack cocaine to the room per day to package for sale. She further believed at least a half-ounce of crack cocaine would be found in defendant's black duffel bag inside the room and more would be found outside the hotel room.

¶ 16 Rosas then asked to use the restroom. Officer Thompson, who stood by during the interview, escorted Rosas to the restroom. While there, Rosas told Officer Thompson she had crack cocaine concealed inside her vagina. Officer Thompson looked into the toilet and observed a plastic bag containing what appeared to be individually packaged pieces of crack cocaine. Officer Thompson informed Officer McDonald of what she discovered.

¶ 17 Rosas returned to the interview room, where Officer McDonald was to take a statement regarding the crack cocaine discovered during Rosas's bathroom break. When asked how the crack cocaine came to be concealed within her vagina, Rosas initially told Officer McDonald that defendant physically placed the cocaine inside her vagina just before the traffic stop. Rosas assured Officer McDonald she was being truthful. Rosas stated this was her first time out dealing with defendant. She also stated defendant wanted her to accompany him because he had the gun, but she was not sure whether he wanted her there to take blame for the gun.

¶ 18 After about 15 minutes, Officer McDonald again asked Rosas to speak with him. Officer McDonald sought clarification as to how the crack cocaine came to be concealed within Rosas's vagina. This time, Rosas stated defendant handed her the bag containing crack cocaine and ordered her to conceal it in her vagina just before the traffic stop. Defendant told her she would be sorry if she did not do so. Rosas then placed the crack cocaine inside her vagina. Additionally, Rosas told police the last time she smoked crack was just before she and defendant were arrested.

¶ 19 C. Search of the Hotel Room

¶ 20 After Rosas was interviewed, she was asked to swear to an affidavit in support of a search warrant. The affidavit stated...