*1 we, the reasons given by Agency permit for its denial and accord- ingly, find no basis which the case further upon to remand hear- ing.
For the reasons stated in opinion, we affirm the decision the Board.
Affirmed. P.J.,
EARNS, EASSERMAN, J., ILLINOIS, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE Plaintiff-Appellee, OF v. SMITH, SR., GROVER Defendant-Appellant.
Fifth District No. 5 — 86—0822 Opinion October filed Supplemental opinion on filed denial rehearing 10, 1987. December *2 Evers, De- Appellate Dan both of State Daniel M. Kirwan and W. Office, Vernon, appellant. for fender’s of Mt. Clemons, Boyle, Attorney, Murphysboro (Kenneth R.
John R. State’s of Buchman, Appel- Norris, Attorneys all of State’s E. and Debra A. Stephen Office, counsel), People. for the late Prosecutor’s of delivered the opinion KARNS PRESIDING JUSTICE court: violating of section Smith, Sr., was convicted
Defendant, Grover 1985, ch. Stat. (Code) (Ill. Code Rev. 303(d) of the Illinois Vehicle 6— after mоnths’ imprisonment and sentenced to 23 95½, 303(d)) County. in the circuit court of Jackson trial by jury of a second that convicted 303(d) provides any person Section 6— license re while (driving of section 6—303 violation subsequent or original if the revocation felony of a Class 4 guilty voked) shall in the scene of an accident (leaving 11—401 a of section for violation under (driving 11—501 or section personal injuries) death or volving 1985, ch. Stat. (Ill. Rev. the Illinois Vehicle Code influence) of 9—3 of the a 401, 501), or violation pars. 11— 11— reckless the offense of 1961, amended, relating to as Criminal Code had a 38, 3). previous Smith par. Rev. Stat. (Ill. homicide and that revoca his license was driving for while conviction alcohol. the influence of for driving tion was driving conviction of a argues previous that defendant appeal, On in section spеcified of the offense is an element the influence introduce sufficient evidence the State failed to and that 303(d) Alterna- reasonable doubt. a beyond conviction previous sentenсing pro- a merely is argues tively, were not essential elements vision that convictions maintains, fair Therefore, of the offense. he was denied a trial because the trial submitted evidence оf improperly court other to the also argues Defendant jury. is
fine assessed because the defendant against should be vacated following reasons, unable that amount. For affirm the judgment County. оf the circuit court Jackson 3, 1986, Smith, Sr.,
On in February Murphys- Grover was stopped boro, Illinois, a Jackson his sheriff after car was deputy seen driving erratically and with one When asked to headlight. produce license, his driver’s defendant stated that he did not have It one. was had subsequently discovered that Smith conviction driving while his license that the was revoked and revo- cation was for driving under the influence alcohol. trial,
At State introduced as three orders of evidence separate revocation, State, certified by the all of which were for Secretary driving under the influence of all intoxiсating liquor and of which were effect on State or- February The also introduced an der for probation Smith, for Mr. April dated while his evidence, license was revoked. Based upon Mr. Smith was found guilty.
On appeal, defendant contends that the failed to prove State *3 a guilty beyond reasonable it doubt because failed to introduce sufficient evidence of his prior DUI of only convictions. The evidence prior these copies convictions was the certified of the orders of revo cation, which stated that the reason for revocation was the influence of intoxicating liquor. v. Citing People Slaughter (1980), 88, 1058, 84 Ill. 404 App. 3d N.E.2d or maintains that in conviction, der to prove prior his DUI the State must introduce into the evidence either records those proceedings coр of or authenticated of ies those records. Slaughter rule,
While states the traditional the believe Motor Code Vehicle an of provides exception. Section 2—108 the Code statеs, “The of Secretary State is hereby prepare authorized to the seal of the Secretary of State of his copies any certified records of office such every and cеrtified in copy shall be admissible any pro ceeding in court in like any original manner as the thereof.” (Ill. Rev. 1985, 95½, par. 108.) Stat. ch. copies Certified of orders of revoca 2— are (Cf. 305, tion admissible. v. Peоple Younge(1980), 83 Ill. 3d App. 309, 415, Further, 404 N.E.2d 418.) section 117(b) Code states:
“The of shall of Secretary State maintain records appropriate 742 refused, cancelled,
all licenses
or sus
and
permits
and of
revocation
pended
suspension
driving privi
and
of
leges of persons not licensed under this
and
rec
Chapter,
such
shall
added.)
ords
note the reasons
such action.” (Emphasis
for
1985,
Ill. Rev.
117(b).
Stat.
Reading these
together,
two statutes
we conclude that a certified
an order of
copy of
revocation which
that
for such
states
reason
was driving
revocation
under the
of alcohol
evi-
influence
is sufficient
purposes
dence to
DUI
conviction
-303(d).
As an
argument,
alternative
defendant maintains
that
of
the Vehicle Code is merely
sentencing
a
and
provision
that
not
prior
are
elements of the offense which the State
must
but are
factors
in
prove,
sentencing
used
de
only
judge
termining whether the crime should be enhanced to a
The in
felony.
convictions,
troduction of his previous
defendant argues, prejudiced
and denied him a fair trial.
jury
We considered a similar
in
v.
150
People
(1986),
Hicks
242,
Ill.
3d
App.
Defendant also argument As this he that аmount. financially pay cause is unable trial, it is motion for a new not in defendant’s post-trial was advanced purposes appeal. waived court reasons, the decision of the cirсuit the aforementioned
For of Jackson is affirmed.
Affirmed. WELCH, JJ.,
HARRISON and SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON DENIAL OF REHEARING JUSTICE KARNS of the court: opinion delivered Smith, Sr., violating Grover was convicted the Illinois (Ill. 303(d)) Vehicle Code Rev. Stat. after a trial by in the He jury circuit court of Jackson County. $1,000. sentеnced to 23 months’ imprisonment and fined On appeal, that the State argued prove Mr. failed to guilty beyond Smith the State did not introduce certified copies doubt because reasonable аlternative, In the argued convictions. he prior of the records of his orders of previous of his revo that the introduction of certified copies convictions cation such prior unfairly рrejudiced jury because but to prove, were not elements of the offense the State had which determining factors to sentencing judge be used by held that a felony. whether the offense should enhanced to a We states that the reason certified of an order of revocation which copy the influence of alcohol was for such revocation was convictions for purposes sufficient evidence to DUI 303(d). further held that such of the had to be to the proved were elements enhanced offense which trier of fact. $1,000 fine, ar imposition
Mr. also appealed Smith it. in our guing opin that he was unable We stated not in his post-trial ion that because he did advance In his trial, motion for a it was waived for purposes appeal. new sentencing maintains that petition rehearing, Smith because *5 does not occur necessarily verdict, within 30 of the time limit days within which a motion for filed, new trial must be a defendant would prevented from a sentence appealing imposed more than 30 days after the case, return of the In verdict. Mr. Smith’s he filed motion for a new trial on November after the days return of the verdict. Sentencing occurred later that Mr. Smith could not day. have included a for relief from the request sentence in his motion for a new trial because it hold, therefore, had not yet imposed. been that re- view of the severity of a sentence is not by failing waived include it in a post-trial motion for a new trial. merits, Mr.
Considering however, Smith’s on the conclude that imposition fine was not an abuse of the trial court’s discretion and on should not be vaсated appeal. Smith was one given year from the date of his release to the fine pay and the record supports the trial court’s conclusion that Mr. Smith the fine. able
The judgment circuit court of Jackson is affirmed. HARRISON, P.J., WELCH, J., PAGE, Plaintiff-Appellant, RAIL- JOSHUA v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL GULF
ROAD, Defendant-Appellee. Fifth District No. 5-86-0637 Opinion Rehearing filed October December 1987. denied