Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 19 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Four found with methamphetamine, cocaine
Published Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Stacia Beers
Angelita Caballero
Algermi Smith
Anthony Weber
Four people were charged in Freeborn County District Court last week for methamphetamine and cocaine-related sales or possession after local law enforcement officers conducted search warrants at two unrelated residences in Albert Lea.
As a result of the first search, Stacia Lynn Beers, 25, and Anthony Lee Weber, 26, were charged for instances related to methamphetamine.
Beers, of South Broadway Avenue, was charged with four third-degree meth sales charges and one fifth-degree possession of meth charge.
The third-degree sales charges each carry a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, and the fifth-degree possession carries a maximum penalty of 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
Weber, of 795th Avenue in Glenville, was charged with fifth-degree possession of meth. Because this could be a subsequent conviction for him, this charge carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $20,000 fine.
According to court documents, the search that led to the arrest of Beers and Weber took place at Beers’ residence at about 4 p.m. Nov. 25.
Deputy Corey Farris, of the Freeborn County Sheriff’s Department and Detective Ben Mortensen of the Albert Lea Police Department conducted the search and found Beers and Weber in the upstairs bedroom sitting on a bed, the documents state. Officers observed a meth pipe, which had burned meth residue in it.
In a further search, the officers located three “dime bags” that had about 1/2 grams of meth, several meth pipes, snort tubes and bags with residue, according to documents.
The cocaine sales charges for Beers allegedly occurred because of sales to a task force informant on Oct. 23 and 28 and Nov. 6 and 7, the documents indicated.
The total of all sales was 1.58 grams of cocaine.
In the second instance, Angelita Maria Caballero, 24, and Algermi Martize Smith, 23, were charged with multiple cocaine sales charges.
Both Caballero, of Todd Avenue, and Smith, of Pillsbury Avenue, were charged with one first-degree cocaine sales charge, one second-degree cocaine sales charge and five third-degree cocaine sales charges.
Smith was also charged with one third-degree cocaine possession charge.
The first-degree sales charges carry a maximum penalty of 30 years in prison and a $1 million fine; second-degree sales charges each carry a maximum penalty of 25 years in prison and a $500,000 fine; and third-degree sales charges each carry a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. The third-degree cocaine possession charge carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
According to court documents, the search that led to the arrest of Caballero and Smith occurred at a local motel after the Freeborn County Sheriff’s Department investigated illegal narcotics trafficking in six different instances by Smith and Caballero.
The Freeborn County Drug Task Force agent, along with the assistance of the South Central Drug Investigation Unit and the Albert Lea Police Department, executed the search warrant at about 6 p.m. Nov. 25.
Caballero and Smith were stated to have allegedly been involved in supplying cocaine to a cooperating witness, documents state. At the time of the search, Smith was found to be in possession of about 5 grams of cocaine.
Officers also located marijuana, cocaine, baggies, scales, pipes, baking soda and other miscellaneous items, according to a news release last week. An infant child was in the room when officers executed the warrant.
Documents state Smith and Caballero sold cocaine to a Freeborn County Drug Task Force informant twice on Sept. 18, once on Sept. 22, once on Sept. 24, once on Oct. 1 and once on Oct. 21.
The total of all sales was 12.8 grams of cocaine, according to the reports.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by knockerknock (anonymous) on December 2, 2008 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thumbs up to The Albert Lea Tribune for publishing these photos!
Posted by FootballMom (anonymous) on December 2, 2008 at 9:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How come we can comment on these charges?
Posted by nutrient (anonymous) on December 2, 2008 at 10:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with football mom. it seems someone has taken away our 1st amendment right. i guess money and a good lawyer does have its advantages.
Posted by scurvydog (anonymous) on December 2, 2008 at 12:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The Freedom of Speech means that the government cannot arrest you for exercising that right - not that a privately owned website cannot restrict comments.
That said, I agree that if comments are allowed for one story they should be allowed for another.
Posted by mosedart (anonymous) on December 2, 2008 at 12:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I went to high school with Caballero
Posted by rae_rae (anonymous) on December 2, 2008 at 12:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
mosedart-nice so did 373 other people lol!
Posted by inobmaz (anonymous) on December 2, 2008 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We can comment on them now because they have been charged in court.....
Posted by outoftowner (anonymous) on December 2, 2008 at 4:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow, well isn't this a PC group.
Posted by bobbyg (anonymous) on December 2, 2008 at 4:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Any relation to Bill Beers with the sheriff's department? Just currious
Posted by Activist (anonymous) on December 2, 2008 at 5:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If found guilty? The Judge is bound by SENTENCING GUIDELINES. so when I hear "Throw the Book at them" Again and again, remember all these crimes have be done over and over and the Judge has seen it all. 99% of the time he will go by the grid.
MINNESOTA SENTENCING GUIDELINES AND COMMENTARY
I. Statement of Purpose and Principles
The purpose of the sentencing guidelines is to establish rational and consistent sentencing standards which reduce sentencing disparity and ensure that sanctions following conviction of a felony are proportional to the severity of the offense of conviction and the extent of the offender's criminal history. Equity in sentencing requires (a) that convicted felons similar with respect to relevant sentencing criteria ought to receive similar sanctions, and (b) that convicted felons substantially different from a typical case with respect to relevant criteria ought to receive different sanctions.
The sentencing guidelines embody the following principles:
1. Sentencing should be neutral with respect to the race, gender, social, or economic status of convicted felons.
2. While commitment to the Commissioner of Corrections is the most severe sanction that can follow conviction of a felony, it is not the only significant sanction available to the sentencing judge. Development of a rational and consistent sentencing policy requires that the severity of sanctions increase in direct proportion to increases in the severity of criminal offenses and the severity of criminal histories of convicted felons.
3. Because the capacities of state and local correctional facilities are finite, use of incarcerative sanctions should be limited to those convicted of more serious offenses or those who have longer criminal histories. To ensure such usage of finite resources, sanctions used in sentencing convicted felons should be the least restrictive necessary to achieve the purposes of the sentence.
4. While the sentencing guidelines are advisory to the sentencing judge, departures from the presumptive sentences established in the guidelines should be made only when substantial and compelling circumstances exist.
Posted by ccvilla (anonymous) on December 2, 2008 at 6:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
no relation to bill beers
Posted by observer (anonymous) on December 2, 2008 at 10:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I say we give them probation so they will be scared to commit these crimes again, cuz they will have jail hanging over their head. Shucks thats simple man nelsons plan.
Posted by alhsgrad90 (anonymous) on December 2, 2008 at 10:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
they should smile they might look better
Posted by llc123 (anonymous) on December 3, 2008 at 12:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It is sad that these drug charges are almost sure to have jail or even prison time as a punishment, yet the elder abuse cases can be predicted to end with a financial slap on the wrist.
Posted by nutrient (anonymous) on December 3, 2008 at 8:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why don't these individuals get to use their graduation photos instead of mug shots? How nice it is to see the fair treatment. Way to go on being unbiased!!
Posted by ccvilla (anonymous) on December 3, 2008 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
racist , biast whatever you want to call it , obviously drug dealers and users are viewed as worst criminals than someone who sexually molest and abuse the helpless elderly
Posted by purduekelli (anonymous) on December 3, 2008 at 1:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Virginian, don't judge a book by it's cover. All of these individuals are innocent until PROVEN GUILTY. Your sarcasm sucks...
Posted by hockeymom08 (anonymous) on December 8, 2008 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
when do these people go to court?
Posted by babygurl (anonymous) on January 31, 2009 at 3:10 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
The Tribune encourages healthy, respectful dialogue in the spirit of community enlightenment. It's OK to disagree, but be courteous and civil. Name-calling, vulgarity and claims of criminality are subject to removal.
(Requires free registration.)