 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Roland9/7/2004
The issue before us is the meaning of section 11-501(c-1)(2) of the Illinois Vehicle Code (Code) (625 ILCS 5/11-501(c-1)(2) (West 2000)). In appealing the partial dismissal of his postconviction petition, defendant, Thomas J. Roland, argues that his conviction of violating section 11-501(c-1)(2) is invalid because the statute is ambiguous. We disagree, and thus we affirm.
Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of Class 3 felony driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) (625 ILCS 5/11-501(c-1)(2) (West 2000)), one count of Class 4 felony DUI (*1014 625 ILCS 5/11- 501(d)(1)(A) (West 2000)), one count of driving while his license was suspended (625 ILCS 5/6- 303(d) (West 2000)), and one count of unlawful possession of cannabis (720 ILCS 550/4(c) (West 2000)). The Class 3 DUIs were based on the fact that defendant had two previous DUI convictions and the present violations occurred while his license was revoked. See 625 ILCS 5/11-501(c-1)(2) (West 2000). The trial court sentenced defendant to concurrent sentences of 5 years' imprisonment for the Class 3 DUIs, 3 years' imprisonment for the Class 4 DUI, 3 years' imprisonment for driving with a suspended license, and 364 days' imprisonment for possession of cannabis. Defendant did not appeal his sentence.
Defendant later filed a pro se postconviction petition pursuant to the Post-Conviction **974 ***330 Hearing Act (725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq. (West 2000)). In his petition, defendant alleged that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney advised him to plead guilty to the Class 3 DUIs. He asserted that he should not have been charged with these offenses because his previous DUI violations had not occurred while his license was revoked or suspended. He also argued that based on the "one-act, one-crime" doctrine, he should have been convicted of only one of the three DUI counts. The State moved to dismiss the petition, the court appointed defendant counsel, and defendant filed a written response to the State's motion. Following a hearing, the court vacated defendant's convictions of the Class 4 DUI and one of the Class 3 DUIs. However, the court found that defendant's remaining Class 3 DUI conviction should stand, because section 11-501(c-1)(2) required only that defendant's license be revoked or suspended at the time of the third DUI, not at the time of the two prior violations. Defendant appealed.
Defendant argues that section 11-501(c-1)(2) of the Code is ambiguous. Section 11-501(c-1)(2) provides:
"A person who violates this Section a third time during a period in which his or her driving privileges are revoked or suspended where the revocation or suspension was for a violation of this Section, Section 11-501.1, paragraph (b) of Section 11-401, or Section 9-3 of the Criminal Code of 1961 is guilty of a Class 3 felony." 625 ILCS 5/11-501(c-1)(2) (West 2000).
Defendant contends that section 11-501(c-1)(2) has two possible meanings: (1) that all three violations must have occurred while the defendant's license was revoked or suspended, or (2) that only the third violation must have occurred while the defendant's license was revoked or suspended. Defendant further argues that because the section is ambiguous, we must construe it in his favor, and thus follow the first interpretation. See People v. Whitney, 188 Ill.2d 91, 98, 241 Ill.Dec. 770, 720 N.E.2d 225 (1999).
*1015 The primary rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the legislature's intent. People v. Donoho, 204 Ill.2d 159, 171, 273 Ill.Dec. 116, 788 N.E.2d 707 (2003). The best indicator of legislative intent is the plain language of the statute. Donoho, 204 Ill.2d at 171, 273 Ill.Dec. 116, 788 N.E.2d 707. " A statute is ambiguous if it is subject to two or m
Page 1 2 3 Illinois DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|