People v. Miller
117 N.E.3d 305
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- On May 9, 2015, Officer Esnaf Husic observed Delfonte Miller crouched near stairs in an abandoned building; Miller reached behind the stairs holding a small item, then stood, looked toward the officer, and ran off empty‑handed.
- Husic pursued and arrested Miller; 2–3 minutes later Husic returned and recovered nine Ziploc baggies with a white powdery substance from the area behind the stairs.
- Parties stipulated seven baggies tested positive for heroin, totaling 3.4 grams; Miller had prior drug and burglary convictions.
- At a bench trial Miller was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and sentenced to one year in prison.
- On appeal Miller challenged sufficiency of the evidence (arguing the officer did not see exactly what he held and contraband was recovered from a trash pile), requested correction of the mittimus, and attacked several fines and fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for possession | State: circumstantial evidence (officer saw Miller reach with something, run away empty‑handed, contraband found where he reached) supports possession. | Miller: officer didn’t see exactly what he held; contraband came from trash pile — no proof he possessed it. | Guilty affirmed: circumstantial evidence and inferences supported constructive/actual possession. |
| Mittimus error | State: concession that mittimus listed wrong offense. | Miller: mittimus must reflect possession conviction. | Court ordered mittimus corrected to possession. |
| Challenged fines/fees (forfeiture/plain error) | State: did not press forfeiture; court may correct errors on appeal. | Miller: argues certain assessments were improper and seeks presentence custody credit offset. | Court reviewed merits, vacated $490 in improper assessments, reclassified some items, and calculated credits leaving $349 in fines fully offset by custody credit. |
| Presentence custody credit application | State: clerk will apply credit. | Miller: seeks court calculation and offset against fines. | Court calculated credits, explained which assessments are fines vs fees, and directed corrections and offset. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Brown, 2013 IL 114196 (standard for sufficiency review: evidence viewed in light most favorable to the State)
- People v. Tates, 2016 IL App (1st) 140619 (constructive possession: lack of premises control does not preclude guilt when circumstantial evidence supports intent to control contraband)
- People v. Love, 404 Ill. App. 3d 784 (actual possession can be shown by acts of dominion such as attempting to conceal or discard contraband)
- People v. Marshall, 242 Ill. 2d 285 (DNA analysis fee vacated where defendant’s DNA already in database)