¶1specially concurring:
¶2As indicated by the majority, we were ordered to vacate this court’s decision in People v. Echavarria, No. 4 — 02—1027 (December 22, 2004) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23), reversing defendant’s conviction. I dissented in that order, indicating I would find defendant had forfeited his chain-of-custody argument on appeal based upon defense counsel’s concession defendant possessed cocaine, the stipulation presented, the lack of objection to either foundation or chain of custody, and defendant’s new theory of innocence asserted for the first time on appeal. Notwithstanding forfeiture, I also indicated I would find the State provided a sufficient foundation for the admissibility of the package of cocaine. On reconsideration, the majority affirms defendant’s conviction and sentence, and I now specially concur.
¶3The majority correctly affirms defendant’s conviction based upon the authority of Woods. The majority also correctly sets forth the holding and rationale of Woods. Having done so, the majority nonetheless criticizes the stipulation for its exiguous detail. 362 Ill. App. 3d at 608. However, without an objection from defense counsel as to any alleged deficiencies, the State is entitled to rely upon the stipulation agreed to by the parties. See Woods, 214 Ill. 2d at 475, 828 N.E.2d at 259 (the State would believe the sufficiency of the chain of custody was not at issue when defense counsel stipulates to the report and fails to raise the issue at trial). Morever, as the supreme court stated in Woods,
“In the context of the entire record, it is apparent that the intention of the parties’ agreement to stipulate to the chemist’s testimony in a summary and brief manner served to remove from this case any dispute with respect to the chain of custody or the chemical composition of the recovered substance.” Woods, 214 Ill. 2d at 474, 828 N.E.2d at 259.
¶4The same can be said in this case.