{ "id": 4277653, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. IVRAN GALMORE, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Galmore", "decision_date": "2008-04-30", "docket_number": "No. 4\u201407\u20140073", "first_page": "531", "last_page": "538", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "382 Ill. App. 3d 531" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "807 N.E.2d 1228", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1232" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "347 Ill. App. 3d 483", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3950241 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "488" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/347/0483-01" ] }, { "cite": "883 N.E.2d 759", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "760" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "379 Ill. App. 3d 336", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4275810 ], "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "338" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/379/0336-01" ] }, { "cite": "635 N.E.2d 1073", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1075" }, { "page": "1076" }, { "page": "1076" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "263 Ill. App. 3d 282", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5368773 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "284" }, { "page": "287" }, { "page": "287" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/263/0282-01" ] }, { "cite": "736 N.E.2d 157", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "165", "parenthetical": "plain-error exception applies to the issue of the correct amount of street-value fine" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "316 Ill. App. 3d 354", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 1096575 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "364", "parenthetical": "plain-error exception applies to the issue of the correct amount of street-value fine" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/316/0354-01" ] }, { "cite": "660 N.E.2d 901", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "909-10", "parenthetical": "\"Plain error marked by 'fundamental [un]fairness' occurs only in situations which 'reveal breakdowns in the adversary system,' as distinguished from 'typical trial mistakes.' [Citation.]\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "169 Ill. 2d 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 909174 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "17", "parenthetical": "\"Plain error marked by 'fundamental [un]fairness' occurs only in situations which 'reveal breakdowns in the adversary system,' as distinguished from 'typical trial mistakes.' [Citation.]\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/169/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "520 U.S. 461", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11652245 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "467" }, { "page": "727" }, { "page": "1549" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/520/0461-01" ] }, { "cite": "535 U.S. 625", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 353467 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "631" }, { "page": "868" }, { "page": "1785" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/535/0625-01" ] }, { "cite": "788 N.E.2d 1117", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1124" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "203 Ill. 2d 335", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 799372 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "348" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/203/0335-01" ] }, { "cite": "838 N.E.2d 318", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "324", "parenthetical": "a defendant must object at trial and raise the issue in a post-trial motion to preserve the issue for review on appeal" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "362 Ill. App. 3d 272", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4260518 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "279", "parenthetical": "a defendant must object at trial and raise the issue in a post-trial motion to preserve the issue for review on appeal" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/362/0272-01" ] }, { "cite": "825 N.E.2d 353", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "359" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "356 Ill. App. 3d 236", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3750139 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "241" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/356/0236-01" ] }, { "cite": "856 N.E.2d 349", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "356" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "222 Ill. 2d 340", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3602394 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "353" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/222/0340-01" ] }, { "cite": "226 La. 254", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "La.", "case_ids": [ 10083073, 2985573 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1954, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "266" }, { "page": "860-61" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/so2d/75/0856-01", "/la/226/0253-01" ] }, { "cite": "435 U.S. 475", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 2258 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "486" }, { "page": "435" }, { "page": "1179" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/us/435/0475-01" ] }, { "cite": "590 N.E.2d 502", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "226 Ill. App. 3d 923", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5239575 ], "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/226/0923-01" ] }, { "cite": "610 N.E.2d 776", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "242 Ill. App. 3d 465", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5119256 ], "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/242/0465-01" ] }, { "cite": "872 N.E.2d 397", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2007, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "374 Ill. App. 3d 499", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 7328542 ], "year": 2007, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/374/0499-01" ] }, { "cite": "686 N.E.2d 584", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "177 Ill. 2d 389", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 317111 ], "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/177/0389-01" ] }, { "cite": "872 N.E.2d 403", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2007, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "373 Ill. App. 3d 1104", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4270041 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1123" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/373/1104-01" ] }, { "cite": "883 N.E.2d 760", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "379 Ill. App. 3d 336", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4275810 ], "year": 2008, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/379/0336-01" ] }, { "cite": "635 N.E.2d 1073", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1076" }, { "page": "1076" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "263 Ill. App. 3d 282", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5368773 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "287" }, { "page": "287" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/263/0282-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 849, "char_count": 15416, "ocr_confidence": 0.847, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.666970501906556e-08, "percentile": 0.2927188032970262 }, "sha256": "db84e89c9a18dd88cbf4532b980f32a8092619e0b034389998c829b2c47e0a9f", "simhash": "1:ea2834a47b6f57e4", "word_count": 2553 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:27:01.752924+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. IVRAN GALMORE, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE TURNER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nIn December 2006, a jury found defendant, Ivran Galmore, guilty of the offense of unlawful possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance. In January 2007, the trial court sentenced defendant to 19 years in prison and imposed a mandatory street-value fine of $10,000.\nOn appeal, defendant argues the trial court erred in ordering him to pay a $10,000 street-value fine. We vacate and remand with directions.\nI. BACKGROUND\nIn September 2004, a grand jury indicted defendant on one count of unlawful possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance (720 ILCS 570/401(a)(2)(A) (West 2004)), alleging he knowingly and unlawfully possessed with the intent to deliver 15 grams or more but less than 100 grams of a substance containing cocaine. Defendant pleaded not guilty.\nIn December 2006, defendant\u2019s jury trial commenced. University of Illinois police sergeant Aaron Fredrick testified he was on patrol on August 15, 2004, at approximately 1:40 a.m. when he observed the driver of a silver Pontiac disobey a stop sign. Fredrick stopped the vehicle and spoke with defendant, who stated he did not have his wallet or driver\u2019s license on him. When defendant reached to obtain a rental agreement, Fredrick moved closer to the window and smelled the odor of unburnt cannabis. Sergeant Fredrick returned to his car to check the status of defendant\u2019s driver\u2019s license and called for a canine unit. The canine officer arrived and walked his dog Roxy around the car. He later advised Fredrick that Roxy alerted on the car.\nSergeant Fredrick testified he returned to the vehicle and asked defendant and the passenger to exit. Defendant did not comply, rolled up his window, and \u201ctook off at a high rate of speed.\u201d Fredrick returned to his vehicle and caught up to defendant\u2019s stopped vehicle. Defendant opened the door and \u201ctook off running.\u201d Fredrick observed defendant carrying a \u201cblack case\u201d that \u201clooked like a wallet.\u201d Defendant jumped a fence but dropped the case. As defendant stopped to look for the case, Fredrick caught up to him. Thinking defendant dropped his wallet and not wanting to get into a physical confrontation, Fredrick attempted to stall and make conversation with him. Defendant found the case and took off running before getting stuck between a fence and a ramp. Fredrick gave defendant a burst of pepper spray. Defendant then disappeared into a courtyard.\nAs Fredrick continued into the courtyard, defendant ran at him and struck him. Fredrick pepper sprayed defendant again and saw \u201csomething fly up into the air.\u201d Defendant took off and disappeared. Fredrick found him hiding underneath the front porch of a residence. After Fredrick threatened to release the dog, defendant crawled out from under the porch and was taken into custody.\nFredrick did not find any contraband on defendant\u2019s person and did not see the case under the porch. Officers retraced the path of the foot pursuit and found a black compact disc (CD) case containing suspected crack cocaine. Fredrick recovered 50 individual rocks of crack cocaine. He testified crack cocaine is typically consumed in $20 rocks. Based on his training and experience, the rocks were packaged for sale.\nUniversity of Illinois police officer Douglas Beckman testified his dog Roxy alerted to the black CD case. Beckman opened up the case and found a package with a large amount of crack cocaine. He stated the crack cocaine appeared to be packaged for sale and from his experience the Baggies sell for $20 to $30 apiece.\nHope Erwin-Sipes, a forensic scientist with the Illinois State Police, testified she conducted tests on a chunky substance in two of the State\u2019s exhibits. Exhibit No. 1 contained 22 plastic bags containing a chunky substance weighing 54.7 grams. Her test of 13.9 grams of the substance indicated the presence of cocaine base. Exhibit No. 2 contained 28 bags of a chunky substance weighing 29.1 grams. Her test of 10.6 grams of the substance also indicated the presence of cocaine base.\nDefendant testified on his own behalf. He stated he fled because he had a previous conviction for driving while intoxicated and did not want to go to jail. He testified none of the packages of cocaine belonged to him.\nFollowing closing arguments, the jury found defendant guilty. Thereafter, defendant filed a motion for a new trial or, in the alternative, a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which the trial court denied.\nIn January 2007, the trial court sentenced defendant to 19 years in prison. The court also imposed a $3,000 mandatory assessment and a crime-lab fee of $100. When the court asked the prosecutor the value of the mandatory street-value fine, the following exchange occurred:\n\u201cMS. CARLSON: Judge, we would recommend $10,000.\nTHE COURT: Okay. Now is that discretionary with the court?\nMS. CARLSON: Judge, it is for the court to take the sum and multiply it by $10 per [one-tenth] of [a] gram. That was fast and probably inaccurate math on my part that frankly benefitted the defendant at 83 grams \u2014 83.8 grams times $10 per [one-tenth] of a gram.\nTHE COURT: All right. Ten[-]thousand[-]dollar mandatory street[-]value fine.\u201d\nThis appeal followed.\nII. ANALYSIS\nDefendant argues the trial court erred in ordering him to pay a $10,000 street-value fine, claiming no evidence supported that amount. We agree.\nInitially, the State argues defendant has forfeited his argument on appeal because he failed to object at the sentencing hearing and did not raise the issue in a postsentencing motion. By failing to object at the sentencing hearing or preserve his claim in his postsentencing motion, defendant has forfeited this argument on appeal. See People v. Beard, 356 Ill. App. 3d 236, 241, 825 N.E.2d 353, 359 (2005); see also People v. Hestand, 362 Ill. App. 3d 272, 279, 838 N.E.2d 318, 324 (2005) (a defendant must object at trial and raise the issue in a post-trial motion to preserve the issue for review on appeal).\nDefendant, however, asks this court to consider this issue pursuant to the plain-error rule.\n\u201c \u2018 \u201c[B]efore an appellate court can correct an error not raised at trial, there must be (1) \u2018error,\u2019 (2) that is \u2018plain,\u2019 and (3) that \u2018affect[s] substantial rights.\u2019 \u201d [Citation.] \u201cIf all three conditions are met, an appellate court may then exercise its discretion to notice a forfeited error, but only if (4) the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.\u201d \u2019 \u201d People v. Crespo, 203 Ill. 2d 335, 348, 788 N.E.2d 1117, 1124 (2001), quoting United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 631, 152 L. Ed. 2d 860, 868, 122 S. Ct. 1781, 1785 (2002), quoting Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 467, 137 L. Ed. 2d 718, 727, 117 S. Ct. 1544, 1549 (1997).\nSee also People v. Keene, 169 Ill. 2d 1, 17, 660 N.E.2d 901, 909-10 (1995) (\u201cPlain error marked by \u2018fundamental [un]fairness\u2019 occurs only in situations which \u2018reveal breakdowns in the adversary system,\u2019 as distinguished from \u2018typical trial mistakes.\u2019 [Citation.]\u201d).\nHere, the street-value fine showed a gross disparity with the officers\u2019 testimony as to the amount and street value of the recovered contraband. Further, the trial court accepted the State\u2019s formula that bore no relation to the sworn testimony. As this situation reveals \u201ca breakdown in the adversary system,\u201d we will review the issue. We note other courts have applied the plain-error rule in cases involving the propriety of the trial court\u2019s imposition of a street-value fine. See People v. Gonzalez, 316 Ill. App. 3d 354, 364, 736 N.E.2d 157, 165 (2000) (plain-error exception applies to the issue of the correct amount of street-value fine); People v. Otero, 263 Ill. App. 3d 282, 284, 635 N.E.2d 1073, 1075 (1994).\nWe also note this court recently held the imposition of a street-value fine without evidence did not constitute plain error. See People v. Lewis, 379 Ill. App. 3d 336, 338, 883 N.E.2d 759, 760 (2008). However, that case involved a stipulated bench trial and the imposition of a $100 fine. The street-value evidence in the jury trial in this case came nowhere near the amount of the fine. Further, the amount advocated by the prosecutor found no support in the evidence. The amount of the fine here cannot simply be brushed aside as a typical trial mistake, and we find Lewis distinguishable such that consideration of the street-value fine imposed is appropriate under the plain-error doctrine.\nSection 5 \u2014 9\u20141.1(a) of the Unified Code of Corrections provides, in part, as follows:\n\u201cWhen a person has been adjudged guilty of a drug[-]related offense involving possession or delivery of cannabis or possession or delivery of a controlled substance, *** a fine shall be levied by the court at not less than the full street value of the cannabis or controlled substances seized.\n\u2019Street value\u2019 shall be determined by the court on the basis of testimony of law[-]enforcement personnel and the defendant as to the amount seized and such testimony as may be required by the court as to the current street value of the cannabis or controlled substance seized.\u201d 730 ILCS 5/5 \u2014 9\u20141.1(a) (West 2006).\nThe trial court\u2019s determination of the amount of the street-value fine must be based on \u201csome concrete evidentiary basis.\u201d People v. Spencer, 347 Ill. App. 3d 483, 488, 807 N.E.2d 1228, 1232 (2004).\nIn the case sub judice, the only testimony from law-enforcement personnel indicated the 50 rocks of crack cocaine would have sold on the street for $20 to $30 each. Thus, the State\u2019s evidence would only have supported a street-value fine between $1,000 and $1,500. At the sentencing hearing, the prosecutor claimed the fine was determined by multiplying $10 per tenth of a gram. The State offered no support for this method of determining the amount of the street-value f\u00edne. Moreover, with 83.8 grams recovered in this case, the fine would only amount to $8,380.\nHere, the $10,000 street-value fine was not supported by the evidence. \u201c[E]ven if the court may impose a fine greater than the actual value of the illegal substance, the legislature nevertheless intended for the sentencing court to have some concrete evidentiary basis for the fine.\u201d Otero, 263 Ill. App. 3d at 287, 635 N.E.2d at 1076. Although a court may adopt \u201creliable evidence from the trial testimony as a basis for determining value\u201d (Otero, 263 Ill. App. 3d at 287, 635 N.E.2d at 1076), it is unclear how the trial court determined the street-value fine in this case other than accepting the State\u2019s $10,000 figure. Accordingly, we must vacate the $10,000 street-value fine and remand the cause for a hearing to determine the appropriate amount to impose.\nIII. CONCLUSION\nFor the reasons stated, we vacate the trial court\u2019s street-value fine and remand with directions.\nVacated and remanded with directions.\nKNECHT, J., concurs.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE TURNER" }, { "text": "JUSTICE MYERSCOUGH,\ndissenting:\nI respectfully dissent. Defendant has forfeited his objection to the street-value fine, and imposition of the street-value fine does not constitute plain error. This court, including a member of the majority and this dissenter, has previously so held. Lewis, 379 Ill. App. 3d 336, 883 N.E.2d 760.\nAt sentencing, defendant did not object to the street-value fine recommended by the assistant State\u2019s Attorney. Nor did defendant raise any objection in a posttrial motion as directed by section 5 \u2014 8\u2014 1(c) of the Unified Code of Corrections:\n\u201cA defendant\u2019s challenge to the correctness of a sentence or to any aspect of the sentencing hearing shall be made by a written motion filed within 30 days following the imposition of sentence.\u201d 730 ILCS 5/5 \u2014 8\u20141(c) (West 2006).\nSee People v. Montgomery, 373 Ill. App. 3d 1104, 872 N.E.2d 403 (2007); People v. Reed, 177 Ill. 2d 389, 686 N.E.2d 584 (1997); People v. Jolly, 374 Ill. App. 3d 499, 872 N.E.2d 397 (2007); People v. Brown, 242 Ill. App. 3d 465, 610 N.E.2d 776 (1993); People v. Sinnott, 226 Ill. App. 3d 923, 590 N.E.2d 502 (1992).\nA full-blown evidentiary hearing about street value is not required in every case. People v. Otero, 263 Ill. App. 3d 282, 287, 635 N.E.2d 1073, 1076 (1994). The parties may in fact stipulate to the street value. Otero, 263 Ill. App. 3d at 287, 635 N.E.2d at 1076. In effect, that is what happened here. The assistant State\u2019s Attorney set forth a per-gram value and a formula for calculation, $10 per one-tenth of a gram times 83.8 grams. Defendant did not object.\nMoreover, the assistant State\u2019s Attorney is the sworn officer of the court and, \u201c \u2018 \u201cwhen they address the judge solemnly upon a matter before the court, their declarations are virtually made under oath.\u201d \u2019 \u201d Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 486, 55 L. Ed. 2d 426, 435, 98 S. Ct. 1173, 1179 (1978), quoting State v. Brazile, 226 La. 254, 266, 75 So. 2d 856, 860-61 (1954). Further, an assistant State\u2019s Attorney is \u201claw[-]enforcement personnel\u201d upon whom the court relies for substantial information and who has taken an oath of office to \u201csupport the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Illinois\u201d and to \u201cfaithfully discharge the duties of the office of attorney and counselor at law to the best of [his] ability.\u201d 705 ILCS 205/4 (West 2006).\nMore important, no plain error occurred here. The trial court is not limited to imposing only the street-value fine but must impose no less than the full street-value fine. Any amount in excess would be reviewed on appeal for an abuse of discretion, clearly, not plain-error review. Additionally, the statute specifically states street value shall be determined by \u201csuch testimony as may be required by the court.\u201d 730 ILCS 5/5\u20149\u20141.1(a) (West 2006). Certainly, this issue is a discretionary one for the court and not plain error, especially here, where had defendant raised this issue in the trial court, the trial court could have addressed defendant\u2019s objection.\n\u201cIn People v. Allen, 222 Ill. 2d 340, 353, 856 N.E.2d 349, 356 (2006), the supreme court explained as follows: \u2018[t]he plain-error doctrine is not \u201c \u2018a general saving clause preserving for review all errors affecting substantial rights whether or not they have been brought to the attention of the trial court.\u2019 \u201d [Citations.] Instead, it is a narrow and limited exception to the general rule of forfeiture.\u2019 \u201d People v. Montgomery, 373 Ill. App. 3d at 1123, 872 N.E.2d at 419.\nFinally, valuation evidence was presented here, both at trial and through the assistant State\u2019s Attorney at sentencing, and based upon the court\u2019s experience presiding over cases, $10 per one-tenth of a gram of cocaine was an acceptable valuation. The fact the officer testified cocaine is typically consumed in $20 rocks is not necessarily contradictory of that valuation. Presumably, the trial court saw the crack cocaine and decided to accept the assistant State\u2019s Attorney\u2019s valuation.\nFor these reasons, I disagree with the majority and would affirm the trial court.", "type": "dissent", "author": "JUSTICE MYERSCOUGH," } ], "attorneys": [ "Gary R. Peterson and Colleen Morgan, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.", "Julia Rietz, State\u2019s Attorney, of Urbana (Norbert J. Goetten, Robert J. Biderman, and Thomas R. Ewick, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. IVRAN GALMORE, Defendant-Appellant.\nFourth District\nNo. 4\u201407\u20140073\nOpinion filed April 30, 2008.\nMYERSCOUGH, J., dissenting.\nGary R. Peterson and Colleen Morgan, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.\nJulia Rietz, State\u2019s Attorney, of Urbana (Norbert J. Goetten, Robert J. Biderman, and Thomas R. Ewick, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0531-01", "first_page_order": 549, "last_page_order": 556 }