People v. Hamerlinck
103 N.E.3d 415
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- July 5–6, 2012 motor-vehicle collision; defendant Trent Hamerlinck was treated at Lutheran General Hospital and had blood drawn; hospital lab record showed "Alcohol, Serum 306 mg/dL."
- State filed a pretrial motion asking the court to take judicial notice of the Administrative Code conversion (serum ÷ 1.18) and that the whole-blood equivalent was .259 BAC; the motion was provided to defense and the court said it would take judicial notice as an agreement by the parties.
- At bench trial the medical records (People’s Ex. 1) and the lab page showing 306 mg/dL (People’s Ex. 3) were admitted after limited foundation discussion; defense initially objected on foundation grounds but then withdrew the objection and repeatedly conceded the BAC was established.
- Defense’s primary trial theory was that the State failed to prove Hamerlinck was the driver rather than a passenger; defense expressly conceded the BAC was not in dispute at closing.
- Trial court found defendant guilty of multiple DUI counts; two aggravated-DUI convictions charged different BAC thresholds (count I: ≥0.08 with priors; count III: ≥0.16 with priors); defendant sentenced to concurrent 5-year terms per mittimus.
- On appeal defendant challenged admission of hospital records under plain-error review and both parties agreed the two aggravated convictions violate the one-act/one-crime rule; the court affirmed conviction and sentence on the ≥0.16 count (count III) and vacated the ≥0.08 count (count I).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of hospital records/BAC (plain error) | State: parties stipulated and trial court took judicial notice of serum-to-whole-blood conversion; defense acquiesced and conceded BAC, so no error. | Hamerlinck: State failed to establish chain of custody/foundation for hospital blood result; objection was forfeited but merits plain-error review because evidence was closely balanced. | Court: No clear or obvious error — parties stipulated, court took judicial notice, and defense repeatedly conceded BAC; no plain error. |
| One-act, one-crime challenge to two aggravated DUI convictions based on same driving act | State: agreed the two aggravated counts (≥0.08 and ≥0.16) are multiplicitous and should not both stand. | Hamerlinck: argued multiplicity; both parties requested relief. | Court: Vacated the lesser offense (count I, ≥0.08) and affirmed the greater (count III, ≥0.16); no remand for resentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551 (discusses plain error review for unpreserved claims)
- People v. Artis, 232 Ill. 2d 156 (one-act, one-crime rule: multiple convictions improper if based on the same physical act)
- In re Samantha V., 234 Ill. 2d 359 (vacating the lesser conviction where two counts charged the same battery)
- People v. Woods, 214 Ill. 2d 455 (chain-of-custody/foundation issues are forfeited if not timely objected to; stipulations can waive challenges)