THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. LARRY VAN SCHOYCK, Appellant.
No. 105632
Supreme Court of Illinois
February 20, 2009
232 Ill. 2d 330
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, we reverse the judgment of the appellate court reversing the trial court‘s denial of defendants’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Because the appellate court disposed of the appeal solely on the basis of the trial court‘s jurisdiction, it never considered defendants’ other claims of error. See 376 Ill. App. 3d at 936-37. Accordingly, we remand this matter to the appellate court to consider those claims.
Reversed and remanded.
Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Julia Reitz, State‘s Attorney, of Urbana (Michael A. Scodro, Solicitor General, and Michael M. Glick and Charles Redfern, Assistant Attorneys General, of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
JUSTICE FREEMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Chief Justice Fitzgerald and Justices Kilbride, and Burke concurred in the judgment and opinion.
Justice Garman dissented, with opinion, joined by Justices Thomas and Karmeier.
Defendant, Larry J. Van Schoyck, was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol (
Background
On November 13, 2004, at about 1:17 a.m., defendant received three uniform traffic citations from Champaign County Sheriff‘s Deputy J.P. Reifstock. Defendant was cited for driving under the influence (
The record reveals that the tickets were filed in the circuit court of Champaign County on November 16, 2004, as case Number 04-DT-688. Defendant appeared in court on December 14, at which time his attorney filed an appearance. Defendant entered a plea of not guilty and demanded a speedy trial, along with a demand for a jury trial.2 The court file sheet indicates that the next court date was set for January 31, 2005.
On January 24, 2005, the State sent defendant a form letter, on which it noted, “No offer pending felony
On September 19, 2005, the State, over defendant‘s objection, dismissed the three citations and recharged defendant, in an information, with driving with a blood-alcohol content over 0.08, noting in the charge the existence of the sentence-enhancing factor (driving on a revoked license), which elevated the DUI offense to a felony.
On November 29, 2005, defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the State had not tried him within 160 days of his speedy-trial demand, which had been filed on December 14, 2004. The trial court denied the motion. The matter proceeded to trial where defendant was found guilty and then sentenced to six years of imprisonment.
The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss. Relying on People v. Jackson, 118 Ill. 2d 179 (1987), overruled on other grounds by People v. Stefan, 146 Ill. 2d 324 (1992), the appellate court concluded that defendant‘s written demand for a speedy trial, filed before the State had sought felony charges against him, had no effect on defendant‘s felony case because the charges were not required to have been joined under the rules of compulsory joinder. No. 4-07-0024 (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23).
Analysis
The sole issue in this case is whether defendant‘s motion for dismissal, based on the speedy-trial provisions of section 103-5(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (
The parties do not dispute that section 103-5 applies to those charged with DUI offenses, but disagree as to how many charges were involved in this case and to which of those charges defendant‘s December 14 speedy-trial demand applied. According to defendant, there is only “one charge involved, to-wit: driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of
To resolve the parties’ contentions, this court must consider two specific statutory schemes: the provisions of the Illinois Code of Criminal Procedure which address how charges are to be brought in criminal prosecutions and section 11-501 of the Illinois Vehicle Code, which addresses the offense of driving under the influence (DUI).
Section 11-501 of the Vehicle Code
Section 11-501 of the Vehicle Code makes it a crime to drive under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
“A person shall not drive or be in actual physical control of any vehicle within this State while:
(1) the alcohol concentration in the person‘s blood or breath is 0.08 or more based on the definition of blood and breath units in Section 11-501.2;
(2) under the influence of alcohol;
(3) under the influence of any intoxicating compound or combination of intoxicating compounds to a degree that renders the person incapable of driving safely;
(4) under the influence of any other drug or combination of drugs to a degree that renders the person incapable of safely driving;
(5) under the combined influence of alcohol, other drug or drugs, or intoxicating compound or compounds to a degree that renders the person incapable of safely driving; or
(6) there is any amount of a drug, substance, or compound in the person‘s breath, blood, or urine resulting from the unlawful use or consumption of cannabis listed in the Cannabis Control Act, a controlled substance listed in the Illinois Controlled Substances
Act, or intoxicating compound listed in the Use of Intoxicating Compounds Act.” 625 ILCS 5/11—501(a) (West 2004).
The statute designates a violation of any of the above as a Class A misdemeanor. Subsection (c) of section 11-501 then provides a list of factors which enhance the misdemeanor to various different classes of felonies.
Under the plain language of the statute, there is only one offense of driving under the influence. People v. Quigley, 183 Ill. 2d 1, 11-12 (1998). Subsection (a) sets forth the elements for the offense and classifies the offense as a Class A misdemeanor. The enhancing factors in subsection (c) do not create a new offense, but rather serve only to enhance the punishment. Quigley, 183 Ill. 2d at 11. In Quigley, this court discussed the operation of section 11-501(d), stating:
“[A]ggravated DUI occurs when an individual commits some form of misdemeanor DUI, in violation of paragraph (a), and other circumstances are present. The legislature added aggravating factors that change the misdemeanor DUI to a Class 4 felony. The essential and underlying criminal act, however, remains the same: driving while under the influence.” Quigley, 183 Ill. 2d at 10.
Section 11-501 therefore operates just as any other statute which initially sets forth the elements of the offense, and then, in a separate section, provides sentencing classifications based on other factors. See People v. Green, 225 Ill. 2d 612 (2007) (robbery statute); People v. Robinson, 232 Ill. 2d 98 (2008) (involuntary manslaughter statute).
Article 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Article 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure governs how criminal offenses are to be charged. Section 111-1
Subsection (c) of section 111-3 governs how the State is to seek enhanced sentences for offenses and provides in relevant part:
“When the State seeks an enhanced sentence because of a prior conviction, the charge shall also state the intention to seek an enhanced sentence and shall state such prior conviction so as to give notice to the defendant. However, the fact of such prior conviction and the State‘s intention to seek an enhanced sentence are not elements of the offense and may not be disclosed to the jury during trial unless otherwise permitted by issues properly raised during such trial.”
725 ILCS 5/111-3(c) (West 2002).
Application
In this case, defendant faced conviction for the offense of DUI on two possible bases: driving with a blood-alcohol content over 0.08 and driving while intoxicated. These two charges were brought by complaint pursuant to section 111-3(b) of the Code. After the filing of the tickets with the circuit court and after defendant‘s speedy-trial demand, the State desired that, upon conviction, defendant be sentenced as a Class 4 felon under section 11-501(c—1)(1) (driving while on a revoked license due to a previous DUI). To this end, the State was required to upgrade the misdemeanor to a felony, and felonies can only be charged by information or indictment (
Under section 111-3(c), a prior conviction such as the revoked license in this case is not an element of the underlying offense. People v. DiPace, 354 Ill. App. 3d 104, 114 (2004). Thus, the information did not charge anything new. The information merely elevated the misdemeanor DUI, initially charged by way of a traffic citation, to a felony. Under section 111-3(c), the information is a request for an enhanced sentence, which the legislature has defined as a “sentence which is increased by a prior conviction from one classification of offense to another higher level classification of offense.”
The State has the discretion not only to decide what charges to bring, but to decide whether charges should be dismissed. People v. Rhodes, 38 Ill. 2d 389, 396 (1967). The State may not avoid a speedy-trial demand by dismissing a charge only to refile the identical charge for the identical offense based on the identical acts. People v. Fosdick, 36 Ill. 2d 524 (1967). Defendant contends that,
The voluntary dismissal of criminal charges before trial is, in effect, a nolle prosequi. People v. Guido, 11 Ill. App. 3d 1067, 1069 n.2 (1973), citing Commonwealth v. Brandano, 359 Mass. 332, 334-35, 269 N.E.2d 84, 86-87 (1971). The effect of a nolle prosequi is “to terminate the charge to which it is entered and to permit the defendant to go wherever he pleases, without entering into a recognizance to appear at any other time. If it is entered before jeopardy has attached, it does not operate as an acquittal, so as to prevent a subsequent prosecution for the same offense.” People v. Watson, 394 Ill. 177, 179 (1946). Although the State may refile dismissed charges before jeopardy attaches, its ability to do so may be complicated by speedy-trial concerns. For that reason, voluntary dismissal and the subsequent refiling of identical charges do not toll the statute. Fosdick, 36 Ill. 2d at 528-29.
We hold, therefore, that defendant‘s speedy-trial demand filed with respect to the offenses charged by complaint was applicable to the same offense refiled by the State in its information. As noted, defendant filed his written demand for a speedy trial on December 14, 2004, and the 160-day period was thus set to expire on May 23, 2005. The parties have agreed that no amount of delay from December 14, 2004, until May 23, 2005, was attributable to defendant. Defendant‘s trial, which took place on November 29, 2005, was outside the limitations set forth in section 103—5(b) (
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the judgments of the circuit court and the appellate court are reversed.
Appellate court judgment reversed; circuit court judgment reversed.
The majority concludes that defendant‘s speedy-trial demand, filed in the misdemeanor traffic case, precludes prosecution on the subsequently filed felony charge. For the following reasons, I believe that the majority opinion is in error and, therefore, dissent.
Defendant‘s current interaction with the criminal justice system began on November 13, 2004, when a Champaign County sheriff‘s deputy issued him three uniform citations. It is undisputed that the Champaign County State‘s Attorney‘s office had no prior knowledge of, or involvement in, the issuance of these citations. Defendant‘s traffic citations were filed in the Champaign County circuit court under case number 04-DT-688 (traffic case). Defendant filed a written speedy-trial demand in the traffic case.
On September 19, 2005, the State dismissed the traffic case and charged defendant by information with felony DUI under section 11-501(c—1)(1) of the Illinois Vehicle Code (
On November 29, 2005, 71 days after the felony charge was filed, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the felony case on the basis that the 160-day speedy-trial period had expired. The trial court denied defendant‘s motion. On November 8, 2006, following a stipulated bench trial, defendant was convicted of felony DUI. He was subsequently sentenced to six years’ imprisonment in the Department of Corrections.
Defendant appealed, arguing that he was charged with only one offense and that, therefore, the speedy-trial demand he filed in the traffic case was applicable to the later-filed felony case. The appellate court rejected this argument, holding that the traffic case and felony
In Illinois, there is both a statutory and a constitutional right to speedy trial. People v. Cordell, 223 Ill. 2d 380, 385 (2006). See also
The majority accurately states that the sole question in this case is whether defendant‘s motion for dismissal, based on speedy-trial grounds, should have been granted. This court has never previously addressed this precise issue. For the reasons that follow, I believe that the trial court was correct in denying defendant‘s motion for dismissal, and that the appellate court was correct in affirming that denial.
Ordinarily, we think of compulsory joinder in terms of the joinder of related offenses and not the number of cases or charges. See People v. Mauricio, 249 Ill. App. 3d 904, 911 (1993) (“[t]he statutory language of section 3-3 would seem to require the State to have brought all of the charges against defendant in one proceeding“). Indeed, the statutory language of the compulsory joinder statute requires inter alia that the “several offenses” in question be “known to the proper prosecuting officer at the time of commencing the prosecution.”
The majority, having initially concluded that misde-
What the majority overlooks is that even if there was only one offense, there were still two charges and each charge was initiated by a different charging authority. These separate charges, initiated by different charging authorities, are not subject to compulsory joinder and are not otherwise subject to the same speedy-trial period.
The first charging authority involved in this case is the Champaign County sheriff. The sheriff charged defendant through the issuance of three uniform citations. Uniform citations are “intended to be used by a police officer in making a charge for traffic offenses and certain misdemeanors and petty offenses.” People v. Jackson, 118 Ill. 2d 179, 192 (1987). These uniform citations constitute a complaint to which a defendant may plead. Jackson, 118 Ill. 2d at 192, citing People v. Pankey, 94 Ill. 2d 12, 17 (1983). Thus, the issuance of a citation constitutes the charging of a defendant with the commission of an offense without any involvement of the State‘s Attorney‘s office whatsoever.
The second charging authority was the State‘s Attorney. The State‘s Attorney had to initiate separate proceedings against defendant to try him for the Class 4 felony, as uniform citations cannot be used to charge a person with a felony. Jackson, 118 Ill. 2d at 192, citing
In the ordinary case of compulsory joinder, the State‘s Attorney files two or more charges that are based on the defendant‘s same actions. In such a case, the analysis conducted by a court focuses on whether the three conditions of the compulsory-joinder statute have been met. See People v. Williams, 204 Ill. 2d 191 (2003). If the conditions are met, all the various cases are subject to the same speedy-trial period.
In this case, the two separate charges cannot be subject to compulsory joinder as it would have been impossible for the sheriff‘s deputy to charge defendant with the felony offense. It would be an inherent contradiction for this court to hold that separate charges brought by different charging authorities had to be joined when the authority initiating the first charge is expressly prohibited from filing the second charge. Thus, because there were two charging authorities, and because the initial charge in the traffic case could not have included the later-filed felony, the two charges are not subject to compulsory joinder. Therefore, the speedy-trial period must be determined as to each individual case.
The compulsory joinder discussion in People v. Quigley, 183 Ill. 2d 1 (1998), supports this conclusion. In Quigley, this court stated that, “[i]f the charges are required to be brought in a single prosecution, the speedy-trial period begins to run when the speedy-trial demand is filed, even if the State brings some of the charges at a later date.” Quigley, 183 Ill. 2d at 13. In Quigley, the State‘s Attorney dismissed the ordinance violations and
Further support for this reasoning is found in this court‘s opinion in Jackson, 118 Ill. 2d 179. In Jackson, this court was asked to examine whether a defendant charged with reckless homicide following a drunk driving accident could raise double jeopardy or compulsory joinder as a defense to his homicide prosecution where he had already pled guilty to underlying traffic offenses. Jackson, 118 Ill. 2d 179.3 This court held that “the compulsory-joinder provisions of section 3-3 do not apply to offenses that have been charged by the use of a uniform citation.” Jackson, 118 Ill. 2d at 192. In reaching that conclusion, this court stated that “[w]e hold today that the compulsory-joinder provisions of section 3-3 do not apply to offenses that have been charged by the use of a uniform citation and complaint form provided for traffic offenses.” Jackson, 118 Ill. 2d at 192. Thus, the court allowed the defendant‘s felony conviction to stand because joinder of the felony and traffic offenses was not required.
It is true that Jackson dealt with compulsory joinder in the context of double jeopardy concerns and the instant case deals with speedy-trial issues. However, neither the majority nor defendant cite any reason why compulsory joinder should be treated differently for speedy-trial purposes than it is for double jeopardy purposes.
Though this court has never specifically addressed
The only authority cited by the majority to support its conclusion that the State‘s Attorney‘s “dismissal and the subsequent refiling of identical charges do not toll the statute” is People v. Fosdick. 232 Ill. 2d at 340, citing People v. Fosdick, 36 Ill. 2d 524, 528 (1967). However, Fosdick does not apply to the present case, as Fosdick did not involve a prosecution initiated by uniform citation. Instead, the various charges filed, dismissed, and refiled in Fosdick were by either information or indictment. Fosdick, 36 Ill. 2d at 526-27.
It is undisputed that the State may not avoid a speedy-trial demand by dismissing a charge only to refile the identical charge for the identical offense based on the identical acts. In People v. Woolsey, this court reasoned that “[t]he decision to nol-pros a charge is within the discretion of the prosecution and, thus, can be used to improperly manipulate criminal proceedings or to purposefully evade the operation of the speedy-trial statute.” People v. Woolsey, 139 Ill. 2d 157, 169 (1990).
However, Woolsey and other cases that have considered this issue have all been cases where the State‘s Attorney initiated the prosecution, dismissed the case, and then filed a new case for the identical offense. See Woolsey, 139 Ill. 2d at 160. See also People v. Watson, 394 Ill. 177, 178 (1946) (cited by the majority, 232 Ill. 2d at 340).
Furthermore, nothing in the record of this case demonstrates that the State was attempting to “manipulate criminal proceedings” or “purposefully evade the operation of the speedy-trial statute.” Woolsey, 139 Ill. 2d at 169.
There is no indication that the State derived any benefit whatsoever from the delay in bringing defendant to trial on the felony charge. The record reflects that the
Likewise, the State did not evince any evasion of the operation of the speedy-trial statute. Unlike in Woolsey, the State in this case did not wait until defendant had brought a motion to dismiss on speedy-trial grounds to file the felony charge. The State dismissed the traffic case and filed the felony case before defendant had filed a motion to dismiss.
However, despite the delay in bringing the felony charge, the State still brought the felony case within the three-year statute of limitations. See
In this case, there are two separate protections at issue. First, there is the protection of the speedy-trial act. The speedy-trial act helps ensure that a defendant‘s constitutional right to a speedy trial is observed and respected by the State. The current facts do not present a violation of this right. The second protection at issue is the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations (
“designed to protect individuals from having to defend themselves against charges when the basic facts may have become obscured by the passage of time and to minimize the danger of official punishment because of acts in the far-distant past. Such a time limit may also have the
salutary effect of encouraging law enforcement officials promptly to investigate suspected criminal activity.” People v. Strait, 72 Ill. 2d 503, 506 (1978), quoting Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112, 114-15, 25 L. Ed. 2d 156, 161, 90 S. Ct. 858, 860 (1970).
Because the State met its obligation with regard to the statute of limitations, defendant‘s prosecution was timely and his conviction should be affirmed.
I would hold that since the State‘s Attorney did not bring the initial traffic case, the speedy-trial demand filed in the traffic case did not affect the latter filed felony prosecution. I would, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial and appellate courts and uphold defendant‘s conviction.
JUSTICES THOMAS and KARMEIER join in this dissent.