People v. Anderson

2020 IL App (4th) 180549-U

Opinion

NOTICE FILED This order was filed under Supreme 2020 IL App (4th) 180549-U Court Rule 23 and may not be cited December 8, 2020 as precedent by any party except in Carla Bender NO. 4-18-0549 the limited circumstances allowed 4th District Appellate under Rule 23(e)(1). Court, IL IN THE APPELLATE COURT

OF ILLINOIS

FOURTH DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of v. ) Macon County MATTHEW A. ANDERSON, ) No. 13CF901 Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Honorable ) Jeffrey S. Geisler, ) Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE KNECHT delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Steigmann and Justice Turner concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: When viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence supports defendant’s convictions for unlawful delivery of a controlled substance.

¶2 In May 2018, after a bench trial, defendant, Matthew A. Anderson, was found

guilty of unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon (720 ILCS 5/24-1.1(a) (West 2012)),

unlawful delivery of a controlled substance on January 22, 2013 (720 ILCS 570/401(a)(2)(A)

(West 2012)), and unlawful delivery of a controlled substance on January 24, 2013 (720 ILCS

570/401(a)(2)(B) (West 2012)). Defendant appeals his unlawful-delivery convictions, alleging

the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he delivered drugs to Winston Baker, the

confidential informant. We affirm.

¶3 I. BACKGROUND ¶4 In July 2013, defendant was charged with six offenses: (count VII) unlawful

criminal drug conspiracy (720 ILCS 570/405.1 (West 2012)); (count VIII) unlawful possession

of a controlled substance with intent to deliver a substance containing cocaine on July 9, 2013

(720 ILCS 570/401(a)(2)(A) (West 2012)); (count IX) unlawful possession of weapons by a

felon on July 9, 2013 (720 ILCS 5/24-1.1(a) (West 2012)); (count X) unlawful delivery of a

controlled substance on January 22, 2013 (720 ILCS 570/401(a)(2)(A) (West 2012)); (count XI)

unlawful delivery of a controlled substance on January 24, 2013 (720 ILCS 570/401(a)(2)(B)

(West 2012)); and (count XII) unlawful delivery of a controlled substance on February 5, 2013

(720 ILCS 570/401(c)(2) (West 2012)). Two other individuals, defendant’s mother, Jill Blue, and

his friend, Randall Roberson, were also charged with unlawful criminal drug conspiracy. Counts

I through VI were charges against Roberson.

¶5 A bench trial was held over three days in April and May 2018. Defendant was

acquitted of counts VII, VIII, and XII. Because defendant’s appeal concerns his convictions for

unlawful delivery of a controlled substance on January 22, 2013, and unlawful delivery of a

controlled substance on January 24, 2013, our summary of the evidence relates to those offenses.

¶6 At trial, the State presented the testimony of Decatur police detective Chad

Larner, who led the investigation of defendant and arranged the controlled buys of January 22,

2013, and January 24, 2013. For both controlled buys, Detective Larner worked with a

confidential informant, Winston Baker. Detective Larner obtained a court order authorizing

audio and video recording to monitor the transactions.

¶7 On January 22, 2013, Detective Larner met with Baker to arrange the purchase of

cocaine from defendant. Before sending Baker to meet defendant, Detective Larner searched

Baker and his vehicle for contraband such as narcotics, money, or weapons. Detective Larner

-2- found none. He gave Baker $1600 to purchase cocaine. After the recording equipment was set, a

phone call was made to a number known to belong to defendant. Detective Larner, who later

interviewed defendant as part of the investigation into the charged offenses, identified the voice

that answered Baker’s call as defendant’s.

¶8 According to Detective Larner, Baker left to purchase cocaine and returned in less

than an hour. He handed Detective Larner a bag of a cocaine. The Decatur Police Department

property record and evidence tag indicates the substance Baker gave to Detective Larner

contained 28.5 grams of powder cocaine. No other contraband was found on Baker or in his car

after he returned.

¶9 The record contains photos captured from the video recordings. In Exhibit A-2,

Detective Larner identified defendant in the photo. The image shows defendant, in a white

jacket, walking behind a vehicle and toward the residence. In Exhibits A-3, A-4, and A-5,

defendant is inside the residence next to a table. He is wearing the same jacket. No other

individual is in these photos. Exhibit A-6, taken within a minute of the other photos, is a close-up

of the table seen in the other photos. In the image appears a tied plastic bag containing a white

substance on the table. Money is on the table and in the hands of a person with white sleeves.

That person is standing in the same place where defendant was standing in Exhibits A-3 through

A-5, which were taken seconds earlier.

¶ 10 The video of the transaction establishes Baker arrived at the residence where the

transaction occurred before defendant. Baker entered the residence. Two other individuals were

inside. Just before defendant arrived, Baker stood at the door, appearing to watch for defendant.

Defendant arrived and walked to the table that was shown in the still photos. Baker followed.

The video shows defendant’s handling the money in a manner consistent with counting it. A bag

-3- of a white substance was on the table directly in front of defendant and next to money on the

table. Baker picked up the bag and left the residence.

¶ 11 Turning to the events of January 24, 2013, Detective Larner testified he met with

Baker to arrange another purchase of cocaine from defendant. As he did two days earlier,

Detective Larner searched Baker and his vehicle for contraband and found none. An

audio-recorded phone call was made to defendant’s known number. Detective Larner testified he

was able to recognize the voices on the audio recording: “That call would have been Winston

Baker. And the male voice on the other end appeared to be Matthew Anderson.” After the call

was completed, Detective Larner gave Baker $5500 to purchase cocaine. Baker left Detective

Larner with the money. In under an hour, Baker returned to Detective Larner. Baker gave to

Detective Larner a clear plastic bag with field-tested positive cocaine. No contraband was found

on Baker. The property record evidence tag demonstrates the package given to Detective Larner

contained approximately 113.5 grams of powder cocaine.

¶ 12 Detective Larner identified Exhibits A-7 through A-11 as photographs taken from

the video recorded by Baker. Those photographs show Baker’s hands as he handed money to Jill

Blue, defendant’s mother. Exhibit A-11 shows the money in Blue’s hands.

¶ 13 Detective Larner also identified Exhibits A-12 through A-17 as other still photos

taken from the video. The time stamps on the photos show this series of photos started under 10

minutes after Exhibit A-11 and spanned a period of approximately 10 seconds. In Exhibits A-12

through A-16, defendant appears. No other individual appears in the photos. Exhibit A-12 shows

defendant, sitting next to a table, holding a clear plastic bag that contains a white substance. The

time stamp on that photo was “15:30:27.” Exhibits A-13 through A-16 demonstrate defendant’s

hands were manipulating the bag. A device identified as “what appears to be a digital scale” by

-4- Detective Larner is seen in the photos next to defendant. No item is on the scale in Exhibits A-13

through A-16. Exhibit A-17 is a photograph of the table. It was captured nine seconds after

Exhibit A-16. On the table appears a pair of scissors, a clear plastic bag containing the white

substance, an additional plastic bag, and a knotted plastic bag containing a white substance on

top of the digital scale. The bag and its contents on the scale appear to be the same size of the

bag that was in defendant’s hands in the other still photographs.

¶ 14 The video of the January 24, 2013, transaction was admitted into evidence. The

video shows defendant passing a table on which there is a white powdery substance. A bag of a

white substance is next to the powder on the table. Defendant retrieves a plastic bag from a

counter near a coffee maker and returns to the table. Defendant appears to be wiping the

substance toward him and the bag he was holding. The video shows defendant’s arm moving, but

the top of the table was not, at that time, captured by the recording. The video shows defendant

twisting or knotting the plastic bag.

¶ 15 On cross-examination, Detective Larner testified Baker became a confidential

informant after “he had a driving while revoked, a felony driving while revoked case that he had

gotten stopped for.” Detective Larner agreed Baker “wanted to work off the case.” At some point

between March and May 2013, Baker was arrested for domestic battery. Because of this,

Detective Larner terminated the cooperation agreement. Detective Larner acknowledged Baker

had asserted he used his own cocaine in relation to a February 2013 controlled buy involving

Roberson.

¶ 16 The trial court explained its analysis in finding defendant guilty of count X, the

January 22 offense. The court observed the evidence was circumstantial. The court noted the

telephone conversation, the fact Baker was given money, and the still photos showed defendant,

-5- money, and drugs. The court further emphasized the drugs were given to Detective Larner at a

weight of 27.4 grams.

¶ 17 The trial court further explained its analysis in finding defendant guilty of count

XI, the January 24 purchase of cocaine. The court noted the phone conversations, the fact that

Baker, who had $5500, went to a residence, and Blue counted the money. The court further

pointed to the evidence showing Baker returned to the detective with 108.7 grams of cocaine.

¶ 18 Defendant was sentenced to 9 years’ imprisonment for unlawful possession of a

weapon by a felon, 14 years for the January 22 offense, and 14 years for the January 24 offense.

The terms were to be served concurrently.

¶ 19 This appeal followed.

¶ 20 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 21 On appeal, defendant argues the State failed to prove him guilty of the January 22

and January 24 unlawful delivery offenses as the evidence was insufficient to prove he engaged

in the delivery of narcotics. Regarding both offenses, defendant emphasizes he was not seen by

any testifying witness delivering narcotics to Baker, the transactions with Baker were not

captured by video, and there were two other individuals at the locations where the transactions

occurred. Defendant further contends Baker was unreliable as a confidential informant and did

not testify at the trial.

¶ 22 When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, this court must

determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution,

permits any rational trier of fact to find the State proved the essential elements of the crime

beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Hostetter, 384 Ill. App. 3d 700, 711, 893 N.E.2d 313, 322

(2008). The same standard applies whether the evidence in the criminal case is direct or

-6- circumstantial. See People v. Pollock, 202 Ill. 2d 189, 217, 780 N.E.2d 669, 685 (2002). In

employing this standard, we “must allow all reasonable inferences from the record in favor of the

prosecution” but “not allow unreasonable inferences.” People v. Cunningham, 212 Ill. 2d 274,

280, 818 N.E.2d 304, 308 (2004).

¶ 23 To prove defendant guilty of the unlawful delivery of cocaine to Baker on January

22 and 24, 2013, the State must prove, in part, defendant knowingly delivered a controlled

substance. See 720 ILCS 570/401(a)(2)(A), (B) (West 2012). The term “delivery” is defined as

“the actual, constructive or attempted transfer of possession of a controlled substance, with or

without consideration, whether or not there is an agency relationship.” 720 ILCS 570/102(h)

(West 2012). Defendant, citing People v. Coots, 2012 IL App (2d) 100592, ¶¶ 52-53, 968 N.E.2d

1151, asserts proof of “possession” and thus “delivery” requires more than proof that defendant

handed or gave Baker a controlled substance.

¶ 24 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find the

evidence sufficient to support both January convictions. As to the January 22 offense, testimony

established Baker called defendant to organize the buy. Detective Larner identified the voice on

the line as defendant’s. Baker went to a residence, where he waited for defendant to arrive.

Photos taken from the video establish defendant was in the driveway at 3:37 p.m. Approximately

18 seconds later, defendant is seen standing in front of a table on which a knotted bag of a white

substance sits next to a small stack of money and within a foot or so of defendant’s hands, which

are holding money. No other individual is seen in these photographs. Baker picks up the bag

containing a white substance and leaves. The time stamps on the photographs show the time

from defendant’s arrival to the driveway to the last photograph establish less than a minute

elapsed. Baker left the residence at approximately 3:39. Baker gave the 28.5 grams of cocaine to

-7- Detective Larner. The evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, permits

any rational trier of fact to find the State proved defendant transferred possession of the cocaine

to Baker.

¶ 25 Regarding the January 24 offense, the controlled buy was initiated by a call from

Baker to a number known to be defendant’s. Baker arranged the purchase with the individual on

the call, whom Detective Larner identified as defendant. While the still photographs taken from

the video show Blue accepting the money from defendant at 3:22 p.m., the other photographs of

the transaction show defendant holding a clear plastic bag containing a white substance. The bag

is significantly larger than the one in the January 22 photographs. The series of photographs of

defendant at a table holding the plastic bag begin at 3:30:27 and end two seconds later.

Defendant appears to be manipulating the bag, seemingly knotting it. In the photographs of those

few seconds, the digital scale can be seen on the table. No item appears on the scale while

defendant is holding the bag. The last photograph in the series, time stamped 3:30:38 p.m.,

shows a clear, knotted bag with a white substance on a scale. The size of the bag is consistent

with the size of the bag in defendant’s hands. Other than Blue, who last appeared in the photos

approximately eight minutes before defendant was captured in a photo holding the bag

containing a white substance, no other individual appears in this series of photos. Baker returned

to Detective Larner and gave him 113.5 grams of cocaine. The evidence and the reasonable

inferences that arise therefrom are sufficient to show defendant transferred possession of the

cocaine to Baker and to sustain defendant’s conviction for the January 24 offense. See Pollock,

202 Ill. 2d at 217 (“Circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction where it

satisfies proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the elements of the crime charged.”).

¶ 26 III. CONCLUSION

-8- ¶ 27 We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

¶ 28 Affirmed.

-9-