People v. Griffiths, 14892

CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois
Citation67 Ill.App.3d 16,384 N.E.2d 528,23 Ill.Dec. 734
Docket NumberNo. 14892,14892
Parties, 23 Ill.Dec. 734 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert GRIFFITHS, Defendant-Appellee.
Decision Date29 December 1978

Paul C. Komada, State's Atty., Charleston, Robert C. Perry, Deputy Director, State's Attys. Appellate Service Com'n, Marc D. Towler, Staff Atty., Springfield, for plaintiff-appellant.

Ronald Tulin, Ronald Tulin, Ltd., Charleston, for defendant-appellee.

GREEN, Presiding Justice:

Defendant Robert Griffiths was charged by information in the circuit court of Coles County with the offenses of failure to make and keep records of controlled substances administered, dispensed or professionally used by him as a dentist and with failure to furnish those records, all as required by section 406(a)(3) of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 56 1/2, par. 1406(a)(3)). The count charging defendant with failure to furnish the records was dismissed upon the State's motion and is not before us. Over defense objections, the trial court permitted the State first to amend the count charging defendant with failing to make and keep the records and then permitted the State to withdraw the amendment so as to leave the count as originally filed. The trial court subsequently allowed a defense motion to dismiss the count as barred by the 18 month limitation for the filing of misdemeanor charges prescribed by section 3-5(b) of the Criminal Code of 1961 (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 38, par. 3-5(b)). The State filed timely notice of appeal.

The State asserts that the offense alleged was a continuing one and that the last date upon which the offense was alleged to have occurred was within the 18-month period of limitations, thereby rendering that limitation inapplicable. Defendant disagrees, contends that we have no jurisdiction because the order of dismissal was not appealable and maintains that the trial court erred in permitting the State to withdraw the amendment to the information.

We first must consider defendant's assertion that the order was not appealable. The order was pronounced in open court on February 9, 1978, and a written order was placed on file on February 24, 1978. In addition to dismissing the charge, the order granted leave to the State to file an amended count on or before February 23, 1978. The parties agree that the record as supplemented also shows that (1) upon the trial court's pronouncement of the order of dismissal, the defendant requested that his bond be "returned," (2) the prosecutor responded that he had no objection "unless the State filed notice of appeal," and (3) the defendant's bond has not been discharged.

Our jurisdiction stems from section 6 of article VI of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 which provides that (1) except where appeals lie directly to the supreme court and except in cases of an acquittal after a trial on the merits, all final judgments of the circuit court are appealable as a matter of right to this court, and (2) the supreme court is empowered to provide by rule for appeals from "other than final judgments" of the circuit court to this court. Pursuant to that rule making power, the supreme court enacted its Rule 604(a)(1) (58 Ill.2d R. 604(a)(1)) which permits appeals by the State of orders "the substantive effect of which results in dismissing a charge" for grounds set forth in section 114-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 38, par. 114-1). Section 114-1(a)(2) provides for the dismissal of charges when they are barred by the limitations set forth in section 3-5 of the Criminal Code of 1961. Thus, appealability of the order in question turns on whether it has the "substantive effect" of dismissing the charge.

In People v. Scholin (1975), 62 Ill.2d 372, 342 N.E.2d 388, the supreme court affirmed this court (21 Ill.App.3d 436, 315 N.E.2d 661), ruling that where the trial court dismissed a charge for failing to state a crime but (1) granted the State leave to file an amended charge within 5 days, (2) ordered the defendant to continue on bond, and (3) set a subsequent date of arraignment, the order did not have the substantive effect of dismissing the charge and was not appealable. In People v. Heddins (1977), 66 Ill.2d 404, 6 Ill.Dec. 340, 362 N.E.2d 1260, the trial court dismissed a charge because it considered the prosecutor to be insisting that it accept a plea agreement including sentence without a presentence report being provided. The supreme court noted that the dismissal order stated that the defendant was to be held to bond pending further proceedings and "until such time as either an appeal is taken or other proceedings" (66 Ill.2d 404, 406, 6 Ill.Dec. 340, 341, 362 N.E.2d 1260, 1261). The supreme court reasoned that as the order contemplated further action in the trial court, it did not have the effect of dismissing the charge. However, the opinion stated by way of dictum that the Scholin order would have had the effect of dismissing the charge after the 5-day period of amendment had expired.

In the case before us, the time set forth in the dismissal order for filing the amendment had expired by the time the dismissal order was filed. The defendant remained on bond thereafter but the record does not show whether the circuit court had ruled on the request of the defendant to discharge his bond. We find the "substantive effect" of the order to be to dismiss the charge and rule that order to be appealable.

The controlling question which we now face is whether the offense charged is a continuing one. Under section 3-8 of the Criminal Code of 1961 (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 38, par. 3-8), the period of limitations for an offense based on a series of acts performed at different times begins to run at the time when the last such act is committed. By definition of the word "act" in the Code, this rule is similarly applicable to an offense based on a series of failures to act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 38, par. 2-2). The offense here in question deals with a failure to act.

The count in question here charged that the offense occurred during a period from March 30, 1975, to March 30, 1977. The portion of that time from March 30, 1975, to March 15, 1976, was more than 18 months prior to the filing date of the information. Thus, the 18 month limitation barred prosecution for any failure to act during that period unless the offense was a continuing one based on a series of failures to perform the required making and keeping of records.

Section 406(a)(3) of the Controlled Substances Act under which the count was brought states:

"(a) It is unlawful for any person:

(3) to refuse or fail to make, keep or furnish any record, notification, order form, statement, invoice or information required under this Act. " (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 56 1/2, par. 1406(a)(3).)

That provision does not of itself fully define a crime and can only do so when combined with some other provision of the Act. The principal record making and keeping requirement of the Act imposed upon practitioners is that set forth in section 312(d) of the Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 56 1/2, par. 1312(d)). In People v. McPherson, 65 Ill.App.3d 772, 22 Ill.Dec. 468, 382 N.E.2d 858, this court ruled that provision to be unconstitutionally vague and, therefore, void. Accordingly, section 312(d) cannot be the basis for a determination that the count set forth a continuing offense.

Section 306 of the Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 56 1/2, par. 1306) sets forth:

"Every practitioner and person registered to manufacture, distribute or dispense controlled substances under this Act shall keep records and maintain inventories in conformance with the recordkeeping and inventory requirements of the laws of the United States and with any additional rules and forms issued by the Department of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • People v. Casas, Docket No. 120797
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • 5 Diciembre 2017
    ...431 People ex rel. Chicago Bar Ass'n v. Barasch , 21 Ill.2d 407, 412, 173 N.E.2d 417 (1961)), recordkeeping ( People v. Griffiths , 67 Ill.App.3d 16, 20, 23 Ill.Dec. 734, 384 N.E.2d 528 (1978) ), embezzlement ( People v. Adams , 106 Ill.App. 2d 396, 405, 245 N.E.2d 904 (1969) ; People v. Ba......
  • Wright v. Superior Court, S053938
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • 12 Mayo 1997
    ...see also Toussie, supra, 397 U.S. at pages 134-135, 90 S.Ct. at pages 870-871 (dis. opn. of White, J.); People v. Griffiths (1978) 67 Ill.App.3d 16, 20, 23 Ill.Dec. 734, 736-737, 384 N.E.2d 528, 530-531; John v. State (1980) 96 Wis.2d 183, 189, 291 N.W.2d 502, 2 The grace period is now "fiv......
  • Com. v. Edgerly
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • 21 Mayo 1982
    ...See People v. Dorff, 77 Ill.App.3d 882, 887, 33 Ill.Dec. 300, 396 N.E.2d 827 (1979); State v. Holmes, 157 N.J.Super. 37, 39, 384 N.E.2d 528 (1978). Moreover, the other cases which we have found 3 involving only discussions[13 Mass.App.Ct. 569] of the ex post facto laws, go directly to the e......
  • People v. Casas, 2–15–0456.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 14 Abril 2016
    ...429, 436, 31 Ill.Dec. 307, 394 N.E.2d 509 (1979) ), failure to maintain records concerning controlled substances (People v. Griffiths, 67 Ill.App.3d 16, 20, 23 Ill.Dec. 734, 384 N.E.2d 528 (1978) ), or escape from custody (People v. Miller, 157 Ill.App.3d 43, 46, 109 Ill.Dec. 146, 509 N.E.2......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT