People v. Morris, 16 N.E.3d 269

Morris was found passed out in the driver’s seat of a parked car at around 2:00 a.m., with ignition off, driver’s door open, and keys in his right hand, smelling of alcohol.
He was charged with multiple counts of aggravated DUI under 625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(2) and felony driving with a suspended/revoked license under 625 ILCS 5/6-303(a).
Evidence showed Morris in the driver’s seat slumped over the steering wheel; his friend Summerlin testified she gave him the keys to retrieve groceries from the car.
At the station, Officer Kaporis administered the HGN test, and Morris refused a Breathalyzer; both Nigro and Kaporis testified to signs of impairment.
The State elected to proceed on seven counts (one aggravated DUI and six felony suspended/revoked counts); Morris was convicted after a bench trial and sentenced to eight years.
The trial court treated Morris as Class X eligible based on prior felony convictions; he appealed challenging sufficiency, vagueness, ineffective assistance, and double enhancement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of actual physical control and DUI proof	Morris argues the State failed to prove actual physical control or intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt.	Morris contends the evidence does not show he controlled the car or that impairment rendered him unable to drive.	Evidence supported actual physical control and intoxication beyond reasonable doubt.
Vagueness of actual physical control	Morris argues the phrase actual physical control is unconstitutionally vague as applied to him.	Gives a constructed interpretation; argues lack of notice and standard.	Statute not unconstitutionally vague as applied; proper standards and case law support validity.
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Morris asserts various failures by counsel, including improper admission of HGN and failure to impeach witnesses.	Counsel’s strategy and conduct were within wide range of reasonable professional assistance; no prejudice shown.	Strickland standard not satisfied; no reversible prejudice.
Double enhancement and Class X sentencing	State used same prior convictions to elevate from misdemeanor to Class 2 felony and again for Class X sentencing.	No improper double enhancement; other prior convictions supported Class X eligibility.	No improper double enhancement; sentence affirmed.

People v. Watson, 175 Ill. 2d 399 (1997) (drivers asleep in parked car can still constitute actual physical control)
People v. Long, 316 Ill. App. 3d 919 (2000) (tests for actual physical control factors)
City of Naperville v. Watson, 175 Ill. 2d 399 (1997) (framework for actual physical control factors)
People v. Slinkard, 362 Ill. App. 3d 855 (2005) (guideline factors for actual physical control)
People v. Gordon, 378 Ill. App. 3d 626 (2007) (credible officer testimony suffices for intoxication proof)
People v. Greco, 204 Ill. 2d 400 (2003) (due process/vagueness review standard)
People v. Jihan, 127 Ill. 2d 379 (1989) (due process notice for vagueness challenges)
People v. McKown, 236 Ill. 2d 278 (2010) (harmless error doctrine in evidence admission)
People v. Griham, 399 Ill. App. 3d 1169 (2010) (double use of same conviction for enhancement)
People v. Phelps, 211 Ill. 2d 1 (2004) (double enhancement rule prohibits using same factor for elements and sentencing)