{
  "id": 3097964,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SANTIAGO THILLET, et al., Defendants-Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Thillet",
  "decision_date": "1981-08-25",
  "docket_number": "No. 78-390",
  "first_page": "439",
  "last_page": "443",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "99 Ill. App. 3d 439"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "99 Ill. App. 3d 443",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3099691
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/99/0443-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "358 N.E.2d 8",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "43 Ill. App. 3d 1004",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2725128
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/43/1004-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "387 N.E.2d 433",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "69 Ill. App. 3d 347",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3241609
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/69/0347-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "402 N.E.2d 238",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "79 Ill. 2d 129",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3070395
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/79/0129-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 504,
    "char_count": 7715,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.915,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.411867578422581e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4832938136547729
    },
    "sha256": "34829c8c146c71d5860b7bd4f0aa862ede9c32422d9941bb5cde88805f7f3fa9",
    "simhash": "1:fe0cb926ef7ba540",
    "word_count": 1265
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:40:52.281879+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. SANTIAGO THILLET, et al., Defendants-Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE BARRY\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendants Santiago Thillet and Americo Nieves appeal from their convictions and sentences for the crime of unlawful delivery of more than 15 grams of a substance containing heroin.\nDefendants were charged by indictment with delivering more than 15 grams of a substance containing heroin to Joseph Andalina on January 10,1978. A third defendant, Jose Rivera, was charged in the same indictment with aiding and abetting Thillet and Nieves in the delivery to Andalina; however, a mistrial was declared as to Rivera when the jury was unable to agree upon a verdict, and he is not involved in this appeal. At the jury trial of the three co-defendants, Andalina testified that he was an undercover narcotic agent with the Metropolitan Area Narcotics Squad and that he. had arranged with someone named Joe to purchase two ounces of heroin on January 10, 1978. On that day he met Thillet and Nieves in a parking lot, and Nieves handed him two plastic bags containing a brown substance. One was a two-ounce bag and the other was smaller, being identified as \u201cwhat was short from the last bag.\u201d Andalina gave Thillet $1,400 in marked currency. Later that same day Andalina identified the brown substance as heroin by a field test, determined that the two packages weighed about 63 grams, and locked both bags in his evidence drawer where they remained until January 23, 1978, when he marked the bags and delivered them to the Joliet Crime Laboratory.\nOther officers corroborated various aspects of Officer Andalina\u2019s account of the transaction, and persons from the crime lab recounted the chain of possession and the results of tests of the substances. The substances were identified as containing heroin.\nThe defense called a chemist who had also tested the substance and who stated that in his opinion the substances contained cocaine, not heroin, and then the defense rested. The State called a rebuttal witness who challenged the validity of the defense tests. After extensive deliberations, the jury returned verdicts of guilty as to Thillet and Nieves, and reached no verdict as to Rivera. At the subsequent sentencing hearing, Thillet was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 5 to 10 years in prison, and Nieves, having chosen to be sentenced under the new law, was given a term of 30 years in prison. Both defendants have appealed, claiming that an improper reference to other crimes denied them a fair trial. In addition, defendant Nieves argues that his sentence was excessive.\nThe reference to other crimes occurred during the State\u2019s redirect examination of Officer Andalina. Defense counsel had on cross-examination elicited the fact that the bags Andalina purchased on January 10 had been held in an evidence drawer at the police station until January 23 before they were taken to the crime lab. Defense counsel then asked Officer Andalina if he had a reason why the evidence was left in the drawer rather than being transported to the lab, and Andalina said, \u201cYes, sir.\u201d Counsel then changed the subject. On redirect examination, the prosecutor referred to the defense question, and then asked Andalina what that reason was. He replied that there were numerous reasons, and then stated: \u201cThe first reason, that I had an impending deal coming up within the next few days with these people.\u201d After defendants objected and moved for a mistrial, the court denied the motion, sustained the objection, and instructed the jury that the last question and answer were stricken, were not evidence in the case, and were to be completely disregarded. The officer was again asked to give his reasons for waiting 13 days to deliver the substance to the crime lab. This time he gave three reasons: that he had \u201csome other work to do\u201d as a narcotic\u2019s agent, that he had some court commitments the following week, and on the 18th he had a medical emergency in his immediate family that required his presence at the hospital.\nDefendants contend that the officer\u2019s original reference to \u201can impending deal e # e with these people\u201d was improper evidence of other crimes which was not relevant except to establish defendants\u2019 propensity to commit crimes and which therefore was reversible error. Defendants cite numerous cases which have held that evidence of other crimes is highly prejudicial and reversible error, but all the cases cited involved trials where the reference to other crimes was admitted into evidence over defense objections. (E.g., People v. Lindgren (1980), 79 Ill. 2d 129, 402 N.E.2d 238; People v. Goodwin (1979), 69 Ill. App. 3d 347, 387 N.E.2d 433.) All of defendants\u2019 cases are distinguishable from the case before us because here the court sustained the objection and admonished the jury to disregard the question and answer.\nWe also note that defendants opened the door to the question of the officer\u2019s reason for holding the evidence as a part of extensive cross-examination concerning the chain of possession of the bags. The State\u2019s attempt to eradicate the seeds of doubt was thus invited by the defense. Furthermore, we believe the statement that the officer had a \u201cdeal\u201d coming up with \u201cthese people\u201d was somewhat ambiguous and not a clear reference to other crimes. Considering all the circumstances here, we are not persuaded that the statement as to another deal was so prejudicial as to require a mistrial. We conclude that any error was cured by the court\u2019s ruling and admonishment. See People v. Cristy (1976), 43 Ill. App. 3d 1004, 358 N.E.2d 8.\nDefendant Nieves also contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed a 30-year sentence on him. He argues that the sentence indicates a desire for vengeance without regard to his potential for rehabilitation and that the excessiveness is evident when his sentence is compared with the 5- to 10-year sentence given his codefendant. We disagree. Thillet\u2019s presentence report discloses one prior conviction, a 1975 drug offense, for which he received probation. Nieves\u2019 previous record begins with a burglary conviction in 1957 and includes a long series of felony convictions, including a parole violation in 1976. Nieves\u2019 past history indicates that he is a chronic offender with little potential for rehabilitation. On that basis alone, we believe the disparate sentence was justified.\nIn addition to the issues already considered, defendant Nieves has filed a motion to add an additional issue which was taken with the case. The motion questions whether the sentences imposed on July 31, 1978, upon defendant in this case and in a separate drug case were invalid because defendant was allowed to proceed pro se without being admonished as to his right to counsel. We have considered this motion in a companion case filed this same day, and have concluded that the issue was waived since it was not raised in a timely fashion, and even if not waived, that defendant\u2019s contention is without merit. We therefore adopt the applicable portion of our opinion in People v. Nieves (1981), 99 Ill. App. 3d 443, as to the motion to add an additional issue.\nFor the reasons stated, we affirm the convictions and sentences of both defendants.\nAffirmed.\nALLOY and STOUDER, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE BARRY"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert Agostinelli, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, and Russell H. Boothe, of Chicago, for appellants.",
      "Edward Petka, State\u2019s Attorney, of Joliet (John X. Breslin, Gaye A. Bergschneider, Martin N. Ashley, and Kenneth Wilhelm, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SANTIAGO THILLET, et al., Defendants-Appellants.\nThird District\nNo. 78-390\nOpinion filed August 25, 1981.\nRobert Agostinelli, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, and Russell H. Boothe, of Chicago, for appellants.\nEdward Petka, State\u2019s Attorney, of Joliet (John X. Breslin, Gaye A. Bergschneider, Martin N. Ashley, and Kenneth Wilhelm, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0439-01",
  "first_page_order": 461,
  "last_page_order": 465
}