People v. DiPace9/30/2004
ng driving while under the influence of alcohol as a single act); People v. Quigley, 183 Ill.2d 1, 9-11, 231 Ill.Dec. 950, 697 N.E.2d 735 (1998) ("act of driving while intoxicated was independent of and had no relationship to the simultaneous act of driving while license revoked" for purposes of joinder), citing People v. Navis, 24 Ill.App.3d 842, 846, 321 N.E.2d 500 (1974); People v. Bennett, 331 Ill.App.3d 198, 203, 264 Ill.Dec. 829, 771 N.E.2d 533 (2002) (describing driving while under the influence of alcohol as an act for purposes of the one-act, one-crime rule).
Though driving was involved in both of defendant's crimes, each of his convictions was due to a separate offense based on separate conduct. See People v. Adolphson, 73 Ill.App.3d 611, 613, 29 Ill.Dec. 829, 392 N.E.2d 386 (1979) (reckless driving and transportation of liquor separate acts because "[a]lthough these acts may be done simultaneously, they are completely separate"). The purpose of the one-act, one-crime rule is to prevent the State from carving out multiple offenses for the same culpable conduct. See People v. Harvey, 211 Ill.2d 368, 389, 286 Ill.Dec. 124, 813 N.E.2d 181 (2004). In this case, the State is not carving out separate offenses to punish the same act or conduct; it is punishing both defendant's driving without a license and his driving while intoxicated. One crime does not necessitate the other. If defendant here had not become intoxicated prior to driving his car, he would have been charged only with driving while his license was revoked. Likewise, if he had waited until his license was reinstated and then driven while intoxicated, he would have been charged only with driving under the influence. Despite occurring simultaneously, defendant's driving while drunk was one act (see Lavallier, 187 Ill.2d at 469, 241 Ill.Dec. 529, 719 N.E.2d 658; Quigley, 183 Ill.2d at 9-11, 231 Ill.Dec. 950, 697 N.E.2d 735; Bennett, 331 Ill.App.3d at 203, 264 Ill.Dec. 829, 771 N.E.2d 533), and his driving while his license was revoked was another.
*10 Under the second part of the one-act, one-crime test, defendant concedes that Class 4 felony driving while license revoked is not a lesser included offense of Class 2 felony driving under the influence by agreeing that "the State correctly points out that [Class 4 felony driving while license revoked] requires a second violation of [section 6-303], while [Class 2 felony driving under the influence] requires only a single violation of that section."
Defendant relies on Miller, 339 Ill.App.3d at 992, 274 Ill.Dec. 734, 791 N.E.2d 1145, to support his proposition that his convictions should be merged. However, Miller merged driving under a suspended license with aggravated driving under the influence, because the former was a lesser included offense. Miller, 339 Ill.App.3d at 992, 274 Ill.Dec. 734, 791 N.E.2d 1145. In the present case, by contrast, defendant was convicted of Class 4 felony driving while license revoked and Class 2 felony driving under the influence. As discussed above, the former requires a previous conviction of driving while license revoked and the latter does not. Therefore, defendant's convictions of both crimes must stand.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Du Page County.
Affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Illinois DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|