Find Court Cases > Go Back to List > People v. Reynolds

People v. Reynolds

Case Date: 05/24/2005
Court: 5th District Appellate
Docket No: 5-03-0493 Rel

Notice

Decision filed 05/24/05. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same.

NO. 5-03-0493

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIFTH DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the
  ) Circuit Court of
              Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Marion County.
  )  
v. ) No. 01-CF-405
  )  
JEANYNE A. REYNOLDS, ) Honorable
  ) Patrick L. Duke,
             Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding.

JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendant, Jeanyne A. Reynolds, was charged by information with two counts of unlawful manufacture of more than 900 grams of a substance containing methamphetamine(count I and count II) (720 ILCS 570/401(a)(6.5)(D) (West 2000)) and one count of unlawfulpossession of more than 30 grams of cannabis with intent to deliver (count III) (720 ILCS550/5(d) (West 2000)). After a stipulated bench trial in the circuit court of Marion County,defendant was found guilty of counts I and III and not guilty of count II and was sentencedto 15 years in the Department of Corrections on count I and 5 years on count III, with thesentences to run concurrently. On appeal, defendant contends as follows: (1) the searchwarrant was unconstitutional and the items seized should have been suppressed because theplace to be searched and the items to be seized were not identified with particularity, thescope was too broad, and the unidentified occupants were arrested and searched, (2) theClass X penalty provisions for unlawful manufacture of a controlled substance containingmethamphetamine constitute disproportionate penalties, (3) the length of her sentence shouldbe reduced to that for possession of a nominal amount of methamphetamine because thelegislature did not intend to include the mass of incidental by-product or solvent within thedefinition of "substance containing methamphetamine," (4) she was not proven guilty beyonda reasonable doubt because the State did not establish that more than a nominal amount ofmethamphetamine was present in the samples tested at the laboratory, (5) the sentenceimposed on count I must be vacated and the cause remanded for resentencing pursuant tosection 401(a)(6.5)(A) of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act (720 ILCS570/401(a)(6.5)(A) (West 2002)), and (6) her conviction for possession of cannabis withintent to deliver should be reduced to simple possession because the State failed to prove theintent-to-distribute element beyond a reasonable doubt. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

On December 20, 2001, a deputy in the Marion County sheriff's department, MarkRose, received a call from an unknown informant who claimed to have information about alocal methamphetamine lab and methamphetamine materials. Deputy Rose took theinformant before a judge in order to secure a search warrant. The informant swore thatearlier that day he had been at "Roger McCarty's trailer located approximately