People v. Calloway, 2019 IL App (1st) 160983

Police executed a warrant at a second-floor apartment; upon forcible entry officers found a loaded .22 semi-automatic pistol on the living-room couch near the front door.
Multiple officers testified they observed defendant in underwear running toward the back exit (away from the couch) as they entered; one officer immediately secured the gun.
Defendant fled out the rear, was arrested in the first-floor apartment; officers recovered two Crown Royal bags containing 57 small plastic bags of cannabis (approx. 41 grams total), a digital scale, keys matching the second-floor door, and .22 rounds throughout the apartment.
At trial a jury convicted defendant of armed violence (predicate: possession with intent to deliver), possession of cannabis with intent to deliver, and armed habitual criminal; sentencing included 16 years for armed violence.
On appeal the court reversed the armed-violence conviction because the State failed to prove defendant was “armed” when police entered (gun not within immediate access); it affirmed the convictions for possession with intent and armed habitual criminal and rejected ineffective-assistance claims except as addressed.
Additional facts: some seized evidence (cannabis, scale, keys) was later destroyed/discarded by the evidence vault; defense counsel never filed a discovery motion or sought sanctions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Calloway)	Held
Was defendant "armed" for armed-violence when police entered?	Gun on couch was in the same room and defendant was in close proximity (could have reached it); thus he was "otherwise armed" when officers entered.	Defendant was ~15 feet away and running away from the gun toward the rear exit; gun was not within immediate access when police crossed the threshold.	Reversed: insufficient proof defendant was armed when police entered; gun not immediately accessible under Smith/Condon/Harre line.
Was counsel ineffective for failing to move for discovery (and seek sanctions) after evidence destruction?	N/A (State had custody; destruction not shown to have prejudiced defense).	Failure to file discovery motion was deficient and counsel’s omission prevented seeking sanctions for destroyed cannabis/scale/keys.	No prejudice shown: destroyed items were not pivotal to defendant’s theory; claim denied.
Was counsel ineffective for eliciting that defendant had "several" priors?	N/A (State moved to admit one prior for impeachment).	Counsel’s questioning suggested multiple priors when State moved to admit only one, unfairly prejudicing jury.	Not ineffective: jury would have learned of multiple convictions due to stipulation for armed-habitual-criminal; wording was clumsy but not prejudicial.

People v. Harre, 155 Ill. 2d 392 (explains immediate-access rationale for armed-violence liability)
People v. Condon, 148 Ill. 2d 96 (mere constructive possession in other rooms insufficient when weapon not within useable reach)
People v. Smith, 191 Ill. 2d 408 (statute requires defendant be armed when police entered the residence; draws the front-door threshold)
People v. Anderson, 364 Ill. App. 3d 528 (discusses armed status when police confront defendant)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
People v. Ross, 229 Ill. 2d 255 (application of Jackson standard in Illinois)
People v. Newberry, 166 Ill. 2d 310 (dismissal as sanction where destroyed narcotics were pivotal)
People v. Koutsakis, 255 Ill. App. 3d 306 (evidence-destruction/discovery context)
People v. Kladis, 2011 IL 110920 (sanctions excluding testimony about destroyed evidence)
Illinois v. Fisher, 540 U.S. 544 (due-process standard for destroyed evidence)
People v. Bond, 178 Ill. App. 3d 1020 (weapon found within defendant’s immediate reach)
People v. Hernandez, 229 Ill. App. 3d 546 (weapon under mattress within reach supports armed finding)