People v. Davis, 55 N.E.3d 1246

Defendant Antoine Davis was charged with delivery of <1 gram heroin and delivery within 1000 feet of a school after an undercover buy at a gas station at 901 N. Pulaski.
Undercover Officer Leveille testified Davis indicated availability and pointed to codefendant Leshannon Hines, who conducted the alley sale; Davis was not in the alley during the exchange.
The recovered substance tested as 0.2 grams of heroin.
Parties stipulated Investigator Johnson would testify he measured 822 feet from “901 North Pulaski” to the Orr Academy High School gymnasium nearest property-line gate using a calibrated tape.
Trial court found Davis accountable for Hines’s delivery and convicted him of both delivery within 1000 feet of a school (Class 1) and the lesser-included delivery charge (Class 2); sentenced to 8.5 years.
On appeal, Davis challenged sufficiency of evidence for the within-1000-feet enhancement; the appellate court reversed that conviction, affirmed the Class 2 delivery conviction, and remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether State proved delivery occurred within 1000 feet of a school	Stipulation that 901 N. Pulaski is 822 feet from Orr Academy gym suffices to show site was within 1000 feet	Measurement did not establish distance from actual site of the alley transaction to school; stipulation vague about where on property measurement began	Reversed: State failed to prove distance from actual transaction site to school was ≤1000 ft
Whether State proved defendant guilty of delivery by accountability	Officer identification, defendant’s interaction and pointing to Hines supports accountability for Hines’s sale	Defendant denied knowing Hines or involvement in sale	Affirmed: Court found defendant accountable and guilty of delivery (Class 2)
Whether stipulation cured evidentiary gaps about measurement	Government: stipulated measurement is probative of proximity	Defense: stipulation lacked necessary precision to tie measurement to actual transaction location	Court: stipulation insufficient; parties did not stipulate to matters not implicated; clarity required
Need to address ineffective-assistance claim about counsel seeking probation	State did not contest; court noted claim unnecessary to resolve after reversal of enhanced conviction	Defendant argued counsel erred by requesting unavailable probation, possibly affecting sentence	Court declined to decide because enhanced conviction was reversed and resentencing ordered

People v. Givens, 237 Ill. 2d 311 (Illinois 2010) (standard for sufficiency review)
People v. Davison, 233 Ill. 2d 30 (Illinois 2009) (Jackson v. Virginia sufficiency standard applied)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (any rational trier of fact standard)
People v. Sutherland, 223 Ill. 2d 187 (Illinois 2006) (deference to trier of fact on credibility and inferences)
People v. Sparks, 335 Ill. App. 3d 249 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002) (measuring proximity to church property in drug-enhancement context)
People v. Edmonds, 325 Ill. App. 3d 439 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001) (proximity-to-school issues in drug prosecutions)
United States v. Soler, 275 F.3d 146 (1st Cir. 2002) (government must prove distance from actual transaction site to school for federal 1000-foot drug statute)
United States v. Applewhite, 72 F.3d 140 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (distance measured from actual sale site)
United States v. Johnson, 46 F.3d 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (sale-site measurement required)
People v. Gibson, 287 Ill. App. 3d 878 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997) (limits of stipulations as proof)
People v. Durgan, 346 Ill. App. 3d 1121 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004) (stipulations must be accurate and complete)