People v. Koetzle
| Decision Date | 22 July 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75--135,75--135 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois or the City of Harrisburg, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Walter J. KOETZLE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Stephen P. Hurley, Deputy State Appellate Defender, Ann L. Carr, Asst. State Appellate Defender, Fifth Judicial Dist., Mt. Vernon, for defendant-Appellant.
Michael J. Henshaw, State's Atty., Harrisburg, for appellee; Bruce D. Irish, Principal Atty., Russell F. Watters, Sr. Law Student, Ill. State's Attys. Assn., Statewide Appellate Assistance Service, Mt. Vernon, of counsel.
This is an appeal by defendant, Walter J. Koetzle, from a judgment entered by the circuit court of Saline County, pursuant to a jury verdict, finding him guilty of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor and sentencing him to eight months imprisonment.
On appeal defendant contends that: 1) his conviction should be reversed because the complaint in the instant case charged him with a state offense while he was actually prosecuted under a municipal ordinance 2) his conviction is a nullity because the ordinance under which he was prosecuted was not in effect until after his conviction; and 3) if he was prosecuted for a violation of the Illinois Vehicle Code, then his conviction must be reversed because the City of Harrisburg was an improper party plaintiff and had no authority to prosecute a state offense. Defendant also filed a motion to strike the brief of the State's Attorney of Saline County on the grounds that the State was not a party to the action below. We took this motion with the case.
We must first ascertain whether the City of Harrisburg was the plaintiff which prosecuted defendant through its city attorney in the trial court.
On October 9, 1974, defendant was arrested and charged on a standard Illinois Citation and Complaint form with 'Driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor, In Violation of Illinois Vehicle Code Section No. 11--501a.' The complaint was captioned 'Harrisburg Police A Municipality Plaintiff v. Koetzle, Walter J.' and was styled 'State of Illinois, County of Saline, City or Village of Harrisburg, Township of Harrisburg.' On October 17, 1974, defendant served the City Attorney for Harrisburg with a motion for a speedy trial, captioned 'People of the State of Illinois vs. Walter Koetzle.' On December 4, 1974, defendant went to trial. The record shows that he was prosecuted by 'Mr. Charles Ferguson, Attorney for the City of Harrisburg.' In opening argument, the prosecutor stated, 'I * * * represent the City of Harrisburg in prosecution of this cause.' However, throughout the trial and in the court's instruction, 'city' and 'state' were used interchangeably.
Defendant was sentenced to eight months imprisonment. Both the mittimus and notice of appeal are styled with a preprinted caption 'People of the State of Illinois' under which was typed 'City of Harrisburg vs. Walter J. Koetzle.' The certification of the common law record, the record sheet and the Report of Proceedings refer to the case as the 'City of Harrisburg vs. Walter Koetzle' whereas defendant's motion for counsel on appeal and praecipe for the record are captioned 'People of the State of Illinois vs. Walter J. Koetzle.'
Thus, except for defendant's own motions, the record clearly shows that the City of Harrisburg was the party plaintiff and it had prosecuted the action through the city attorney. Since the State had not been a party to this action in the lower court, we grant defendant's motion to strike the State's brief. Although the City of Harrisburg has received notice, it has nonetheless failed to file a brief in this case.
Defendant first contends that the complaint upon which this case is based is fatally defective because it charged him with a violation of state law while he was actually prosecuted under a municipal ordinance. The premise of defendant's argument is that since the City of Harrisburg had prosecuted defendant, it must have, of necessity, based its action on a violation of a city ordinance. This conclusion is a Non sequitor. Moreover, the record clearly shows that defendant was charged, tried and convicted for a violation of section 11--501(a) of the Illinois Vehicle Code (Ill.Rev.Stat.1973, ch. 95 1/2, par. 11--501(a)). The ordinance then in effect, (Harrisburg, Ill., Traffic Ordinance (1964), Ordinance No. 695, § 17) prohibited operating any motor vehicle on a street or highway within the city while under the influence of liquor, and it provided a penalty of a fine of not less than $5 nor more than $500, or six months in the county jail, or both, for a violation thereof. No reference is made to this ordinance in the record but instead, a lengthy argument was made over defendant's motion for a directed verdict, which was based on '11--501, chapter 95 1/2' of the 'statute.' In addition, defendant was sentenced to a term of eight months imprisonment; a sentence unpermissible under the ordinance but proper under the Illinois Vehicle Code. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1975, ch. 95 1/2, par. 11--501(i).) Consequently, we find defendant's contention to be without merit. For...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Wiatr
... ... In Spychalski, the court concluded, on the authority of Berg, that the appeal must be dismissed. See also, People v. Koetzle (1976), 40 Ill.App.3d 577, 579, 352 N.E.2d 433 ... We note that when City of Chicago v. Berg was decided in 1964 the complainant municipality had no authority by statute to prosecute a case in the name of the State nor could it obtain such authority by written delegation from the ... ...
-
People v. Worthington
... ... Nevertheless, after reading City of O'Fallon v. Reynolds (5th Dist., 1971), 2 Ill.App.3d 712, 276 N.E.2d 772, and People v. Koetzle (5th Dist., 1976), 40 Ill.App.3d 577, 352 N.E.2d 433, the court concluded that the city could prosecute State traffic law violations but that it must caption the cause as "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff." The failure to do so here nullified the findings of guilt, the circuit court ... ...
-
People v. Herman
... ... 10 The record on appeal does not contain written permission from the State's Attorney granting the Village attorney the necessary written authority to prosecute the citations based on the Illinois Vehicle Code. 625 ILCS 5/16102(c) (West 2010); People v. Koetzle, 40 Ill.App.3d 577, 352 N.E.2d 433 (1976) (holding that where there is no written permission to prosecute, the municipality had no authority to prosecute violations of the Illinois Vehicle Code). Moreover, the motion to amend the citations presented to the court was not prepared or signed by the ... ...