{
  "id": 3601060,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBERT L. HARPER, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Harper",
  "decision_date": "1985-08-09",
  "docket_number": "No. 84\u20140846",
  "first_page": "846",
  "last_page": "849",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "135 Ill. App. 3d 846"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "356 N.E.2d 1367",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1371"
        },
        {
          "page": "1369-70"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "43 Ill. App. 3d 366",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2722177
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "371"
        },
        {
          "page": "369"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/43/0366-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "378 N.E.2d 1200",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1203"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "62 Ill. App. 3d 644",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5619802
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "648"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/62/0644-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 366,
    "char_count": 7028,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.729,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.436057418262789e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2780723895485799
    },
    "sha256": "ac0bfa464f8edf047977ec3b362512f0f813281686a59ef5e8f3945738ca4a68",
    "simhash": "1:cba9af145ddb5de2",
    "word_count": 1137
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:44:15.524885+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBERT L. HARPER, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE LORENZ\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nFollowing a bench trial defendant Robert L. Harper was convicted of three counts of delivery of a controlled substance, three counts of official misconduct, two counts of armed violence, and one count of illegal possession of a controlled substance. Defendant received concurrent sentences of one year for illegal possession of a controlled substance, six years for each armed-violence conviction, five years for each official misconduct conviction, seven years for each of two of the convictions of delivery of a controlled substance, and nine years for the remaining count of delivery of a controlled substance. This latter offense was a Class X crime because the delivery was of 69.3 grams of a substance containing cocaine. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 56\u00bd, par. 1401(a)(2).\nOn appeal, defendant contends: (1) his Class X conviction for delivery of a controlled substance should be reversed because the indictment, instead of alleging the statutory element of delivery of 30 grams or more of a substance containing cocaine, alleged the delivery of \u201capproximately 70 grams\u201d of a substance containing cocaine; (2) the trial court improperly ordered that $397 seized from the defendant at the time of his arrest be applied to the cost of defendant\u2019s transcript.\nWe affirm.\nAs we have noted, defendant contests only his conviction for the Class X felony of delivery of a controlled substance containing 30 or more grams of a substance containing cocaine. The State\u2019s evidence at trial as to the offense established that on February 19, 1982, the defendant delivered to an undercover agent 69.3 grams of a substance containing cocaine. (Earlier that day the agent had paid defendant $6,450 in marked bills.) Defendant was arrested on the spot. The marked bills were not recovered, but on his person was found $397. At the time of his arrest defendant stated that this was money given to him by his \u201cconnection\u201d for performing the cocaine transaction.\nAt the close of the State\u2019s case defense counsel made a motion in arrest of judgment with respect to the count alleging the Class X offense of delivery of cocaine. Counsel contended that because the statute required that for a Class X offense the delivery must be of more than 30 grams (actually 30 or more grams) the indictment was defective in alleging delivery of \u201capproximately 70 grams.\u201d This motion was denied. Defendant contends on appeal that this was error.\nSection 401(a)(2) of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 56\u00bd, par. 1401(a)(2)) provides in pertinent part:\n\u201cExcept as authorized by this Act, it is unlawful for any person knowingly to manufacture or deliver *** a controlled substance. Any person who violates this Section with respect to:\n(a) the following controlled substances and amounts *** is guilty of a Class X felony. ***\n(2) 30 grams or more of any substance containing cocaine.\u201d\nThe indictment relating to this offense stated that on or about February 19, 1982, the defendant committed the offense of illegal delivery of a controlled substance in that defendant:\n\u201cknowingly and unlawfully delivered approximately 70 grams of a substance containing cocaine, a controlled substance, in violation of Chapter 56\u00bd, Section 1401(a)(2), of the Illinois Revised Statutes, 1981, as amended ***.\u201d\nWhen the sufficiency of an indictment has been challenged at trial, the standard of review is whether the indictment states the nature of the offense and sets forth each of the elements of that offense. (People v. Tuczynski (1978), 62 Ill. App. 3d 644, 648, 378 N.E.2d 1200, 1203; People v. Clutts (1976), 43 Ill. App. 3d 366, 371, 356 N.E.2d 1367, 1371.) Where the grade of the offense depends upon the amount of the drug involved (or the amount of the substance containing that drug), then the amount possessed by a defendant becomes an essential element of the offense. People v. Clutts (1976), 43 Ill. App. 3d 366, 369, 356 N.E.2d 1367, 1369-70.\nDefendant relies on Clutts to support his contention that the element of 30 or more grams of a substance containing cocaine was not sufficiently alleged by alleging defendant\u2019s delivery of \u201capproximately 70 grams.\u201d In Clutts it was held that an indictment alleging the sale of 50,000 tablets of amphetamines was insufficient to charge the Class I felony of delivery of 200 grams or more of a substance containing amphetamines. The defect in Clutts was that absolutely no weight was alleged. Here the indictment specified approximately 70 grams. Webster\u2019s defines approximately as \u201creasonably close to: nearly, almost, about.\u201d (Webster\u2019s Third New International Dictionary 107 (1966).) We find that the element of 30 or more grams was sufficiently alleged by this indictment, which in effect informed defendant he was charged with delivery of nearly or almost 70 grams of a substance containing cocaine.\nDefendant's second contention is that he, an indigent, was improperly assessed $397 (the amount seized from him when arrested) for the cost of the trial transcript to be used in his appeal.\nOn April 2, 1984, defendant, who had been determined to be indigent for purposes of obtaining court-appointed appellate counsel, filed a motion for a free transcript of proceedings. On April 17, 1984, defendant moved for the return of the $397 seized from him. At that hearing defendant testified that this was money he received in cashing his paycheck. The State argued that this money should be applied toward the cost of the transcript. The State also reminded the court of the defendant\u2019s post-arrest admission, introduced at trial, that he received this money as compensation for the drug transaction. The court stated that it would grant the prior motion for a free transcript but would deny the motion for return of the money based on defendant\u2019s admission. On May 14, 1984, the trial court entered an order providing the defendant with a free transcript.\nDefendant contends that the trial court improperly assessed defendant $397 for the transcript. This allegation has absolutely no foundation in the record. The trial court properly denied the return of this money which is forfeitable based on defendant\u2019s admission that it was used to facilitate his illegal sale of drugs. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. BGW, par. 1505(a)(5).) Independently of this determination the trial court granted defendant\u2019s request for a free transcript based on the court\u2019s finding that defendant was indigent.\nThe judgment of the trial court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nMEJDA, P.J., and SULLIVAN, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE LORENZ"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (Robert D. Click, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "Richard M. Daley, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Joan S. Cherry, Mary Ellen Dienes, and James M. Eberlin, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBERT L. HARPER, Defendant-Appellant.\nFirst District (5th Division)\nNo. 84\u20140846\nOpinion filed August 9, 1985.\nJames J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (Robert D. Click, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.\nRichard M. Daley, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Joan S. Cherry, Mary Ellen Dienes, and James M. Eberlin, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0846-01",
  "first_page_order": 868,
  "last_page_order": 871
}