Background
William J. Johnston was convicted after a bench trial of three counts of delivering, or possessing with intent to deliver, methamphetamine weighing more than 15 grams but less than 100 grams. The charges arose from three controlled buys in May and June 2023, during which a confidential source purchased methamphetamine from Johnston.
Johnston raised entrapment, claiming he was merely helping the confidential source carry out a scheme involving fake drugs and had not knowingly delivered real methamphetamine. At sentencing, he also stated that counsel had not obtained all discovery before advising him about a six-year plea offer and that he would have accepted the offer with proper representation.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed the convictions. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, it held that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Johnston was predisposed to commit the offenses and therefore rebutted his entrapment defense. The court pointed to evidence of Johnston’s familiarity with and prior use of methamphetamine, admissions and testimony concerning prior sales and purchases, ready access to a supply source, and jail calls that the trial court could reasonably interpret as referring to drugs.
The court also held that Johnston’s sentencing statement was sufficient to raise a pro se ineffective-assistance claim under People v. Krankel. Because the circuit court did not conduct the required preliminary inquiry, the appellate court remanded for Krankel proceedings. It declined to reach Johnston’s ineffective-assistance claim on the current record.
Key Takeaways
- An entrapment claim fails where the evidence supports the defendant’s predisposition to commit the charged drug offenses.
- On appellate review of a rejected entrapment defense after trial, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution.
- A defendant’s oral posttrial complaint about counsel can trigger a required preliminary Krankel inquiry.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that an entrapment defense does not succeed merely because a confidential source initiated controlled buys; the dispositive issue is whether the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime. It also reinforces the trial court’s obligation to address colorable pro se complaints about counsel, even when raised orally at sentencing.