People v. Williams, No. 1-05-0810 (Ill. App. 11/19/2008), 1-05-0810

• Decision Date: 19 November 2008
• Docket Number: No. 1-05-0810,1-05-0810
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CARMECITA WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 1

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CARMECITA WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1-05-0810

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third Division.

November 19, 2008.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, No. 98 CR 26083 (04) Honorable Daniel P. Darcy, Judge Presiding.

PRESIDING JUSTICE MURPHY delivered the opinion of the court:

On September 30, 1998, defendant, Carmecita Williams, was charged with criminal drug conspiracy (720 ILCS 570/405.1 (West 1998)) and official misconduct (720 ILCS 5/33-3(b) (West 1998)). A joint bench trial was conducted from June 23, 2003, to January 3, 2005, on those charges and related charges against codefendants, Greg Stroud (Stroud), Sean Stroud and Dwight Chandler. The trial court ultimately granted defendant's motion for directed verdict with respect to the criminal drug conspiracy charge. Defendant was convicted on the official misconduct charge and sentenced to 24 months' probation and 250 hours of community service. Stroud was convicted of criminal drug conspiracy and other charges while the two remaining codefendants were acquitted.

Defendant and Stroud appealed their convictions. In a related opinion, we upheld Stroud's convictions and sentence. In this appeal, defendant maintains that the trial court erred in finding that the State proved she violated a law beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant also asserts that the official misconduct statute is unconstitutional and that she suffered from ineffective assistance of trial counsel. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

I. BACKGROUND

On September 30, 1998, the grand jury returned indictments for criminal drug conspiracy and official misconduct against defendant. The official misconduct indictment alleged that defendant:

"Committed the offense of official misconduct in that she, a public employee, namely an employee of the Village of Glenwood, Illinois, in her official capacity as police dispatcher knowingly performed an act which she knew she is forbidden by law to perform, to wit: she notified Greg Stroud about police activity near his residence in South Holland, Illinois, in order to facilitate illegal drug-dealing by Greg Stroud, in violation of Chapter 720, Section 5/33-3(b) of the Illinois Compiled Statutes 1997 as amended[.]"

At trial, the State presented extensive evidence to support its case that Stroud led a criminal drug conspiracy by conducting a cocaine distribution ring out of his home at 15617 South State Street, South Holland, Illinois. The evidence showed that as the undercover operation expanded, the police received several court orders authorizing surveillance of Stroud and others. The relevant order to this appeal authorized the police to intercept and record telephone calls made to Stroud's home from June 17, 1998, to August 15, 1998.

On the night of July 12, 1998, three calls were intercepted that were attributed to defendant. The first two calls were made from a telephone line registered to the Village of Glenwood and the third call originated from a line with listed subscriber "Carmencita" Williams. The tapes and transcripts of these calls were admitted into evidence.

The first call from the Village of Glenwood was placed at 9:48 p.m. and the transcript of the phone call reads, in pertinent part:

"DEFENDANT: Keep your scan[n]er on there is some stuff going on in your area[.]

MR. STROUD: Say what[?]

DEFENDANT: Keep your scanner on[.]

MR. STROUD: What up?

DEFENDANT: OK I'm at work[.]

MR. STROUD: What do you hear[?]

DEFENDANT: I'm at work[.]

MR. STROUD: OK[.]

DEFENDANT: OK[.]"

The second recorded call was placed 20 minutes later, at 10:08 p.m., from the same number listed to the Village of Glenwood and the transcript reads in pertinent part:

"DEFENDANT: You have some eyes staged at the college[.]

MR. STROUD: Say again[.]

DEFENDANT: At the college[.]

MR. STROUD: At the college[.]

DEFENDANT: Yeah[.]

MR. STROUD: What!—A [b]urglary or something?

DEFNDANT: Huh!—No—Some eyes[.] You know what I'm [s]aying?

MR. STROUD: Yeah[.]

DEFENDANT: At the co—co—co—

M-R. STROUD: I know what you're saying[.]

DEFENDANT: OK[.]

MR. STROUD: Thanks[.]

DEFENDANT: Don't worry about that other stuff you're hearing about the barricaded subject that's not what I'm talking about[.]

MR. STROUD: Yeah—Yeah when you get off call me[.]

DEFENDANT: I sure will[.]"

The final call from defendant came from her home telephone number and was intercepted at 11:30 p.m. on July 12, 1998, and the transcript of the call reads, in pertinent part:

"MR. STROUD: Yeah[.]

DEFENDANT: Yeah it's me[.]

MR. STROUD: What up?

DEFENDANT: Uh—I don't know exactly what—what's going on—It ain't like I really heard nothing[.] It's like OK this guy over there on 160 something and South Park he done barricade his house—Barricade his self in the house and we had to send a SERT team over there so we—

MR. STROUD: You all district go that far?

DEFENDANT: Huh?

MR. STROUD: You all district go that far?

DEFENDANT: Yeah we all District 3—Even South Holland[.]

MR. STROUD: OK[.]

DEFENDANT: And uh—We send a SERT team in the area we have to let any agents know in the area that we're coming through and there'll be a lot of radio traffic so either they can change frequencies or whatever and I know I had to send it via computer[.]

MR. STROUD: Alright[.]

DEFENDANT: I had to sent it over to they use posts like post one—post two for locations[.]

MR. STROUD: Alright[.]

DEFENDANT: I just so happen to know where post 20 is and that's South Suburban College[.]

MR. STROUD: Uh huh[.]

DEFENDANT: So I'm not sure what agency you know if there's FBI— DEA—or ATF or whatever but we just know there's agents in the area—Eh you know and they at South Suburban cause that's where I had to send the message to[.]

***

MR. STROUD: Huh?—Would have to be one of them ATF or FBI?

DEFENDANT: Yeah—It's one of them it's it's either ATF[,] FBI or DEA cause those are the only ones that let us know where they at[.]

MR. STROUD: OK[.]

DEFENDANT: Those three agents you know those three departments will let us know that they in the area not exactly where they at but they in the area so like I said they give us different posts they'll—

MR. STROUD: Now what—What frequency frequency—X3 (stuttering) is the one[?]

***

DEFENDANT: OK you pick up Hazelcrest[,] Homewood[,] Glenwood-T-hornton and Glenwood is in there[.]

MR. STROUD: OK—(Unintelligible) See what that's about let me know[.]

DEFENDANT: Yeah basically they probably won't I probably won't hear nothing but if I do I'll let you know[.]

MR. STROUD: OK bet[.]

DEFENDANT: Alright[.]

MR. STROUD: Everybody alright?

DEFENDANT: Yeah they OK[.]

MR. STROUD: Oke Doke[.]

DEFENDANT: Alright[.]

MR. STROUD: Hey thanks[.]

DEFENDANT: Uh hm."

Evidence at trial showed that defendant was a part-time dispatcher for the Village of Glenwood police department and was working at the time these calls were placed from the Village telephone to Stroud. Alex DiMare, a retired deputy chief of the Glenwood police department and defendant's former supervisor, testified that dispatchers are civilian public employees who are responsible for disseminating information amongst police officers. DiMare testified that the department's work records established defendant's employment at the time of the phone calls. He also testified as to the training involved for the dispatcher position. DiMare testified that all employees of the department are trained and given verbal and written materials regarding the department's rules and regulations. DiMare added that the rules and regulations are posted in public view in the police department and in their reference library.

DiMare testified that those trainings and materials specifically cover the department's rules and policy concerning confidential information. DiMare testified that the rules and regulations were adopted by the village trustees in 1985 and in effect from that time through DiMare's retirement on June 28, 2000. DiMare continued on to read the rules concerning confidential information into evidence:

"Section B under Confidential Information Section 1: Members shall treat as confidential the official business of the police department and shall not reveal police information outside the department except as provided elsewhere by the rules and regulations as required by law or competent authority. Information contained in the police records, other information ordinarily accessible only to members of the department shall be confidential. Names of informants, complainants, witnesses, other persons known to the police are to be considered confidential. Silence shall be maintained to safeguard such information unless authorized by the contrary by the commanding officer.

* * *

[U]nder confidential information section 3: Members shall not discuss or impart confidential information to anyone except those whom it was intended or as directed to by their commanding officers or under the due process of law.

Under Section 4, also under the 1985 adopted rules and regulations of the Glenwood Police Department: Members shall not communicate information which may delay arrest or aid the person to escape, destroy evidence or remove stolen property. They shall not communicate information regarding an arrest made by them or a case to which they are assigned except with the consent of their commanding officers. Members shall not communicate information relating to proposed or actual arrests or cases investigated or to be investigated except to the arresting officers or the officers assigned to that case or the commanding officer. They shall not give information or refrain or refer to any case outside the department or agency except through official channels.

Also, under Section 5, members shall not make known or to any person the contents of any directive order which they may receive unless required by the nature of the order."

DiMare...