People v. Smith, 2-88-0929
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
| Writing for the Court | INGLIS |
| Citation | 544 N.E.2d 413,135 Ill.Dec. 917,188 Ill.App.3d 387 |
| Parties | , 135 Ill.Dec. 917 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael A. SMITH, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 2-88-0929,2-88-0929 |
| Decision Date | 12 September 1989 |
Page 413
v.
Michael A. SMITH, Defendant-Appellee.
Second District.
[188 Ill.App.3d 389] James E. Ryan, Du Page County State's Atty., Wheaton, William L. Browers, Deputy Director, Colleen M. Griffin, State's Attys.
Page 414
[135 Ill.Dec. 918] Appellate Prosecutors, Elgin, for People.Jones & McJoynt, Timothy J. McJoynt, Jones & McJoynt, Downers Grove, for Michael Smith.
Justice INGLIS delivered the opinion of the court:
The State appeals from an order of the circuit court of Du Page County which vacated the conviction of defendant, Michael A. Smith, for driving while under the influence of alcohol (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-501(a)(2)). Defendant brought his motion to vacate pursuant to section 2-1401(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 110, par. 2-1401(a)) eight months after his conviction following a guilty plea. The State contends that the trial court erred in granting defendant's motion on the basis that the motion did not state adequate grounds for relief under section 2-1401. We reverse.
The record indicates that defendant was arrested on August 12, 1987, and charged with driving while under the influence of alcohol (DUI) (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-501(a)(2)); driving with a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.10 or more (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-501(a)(1)); and driving a motorcycle in violation of his driver's license classification (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 95 1/2, par. 6-[188 Ill.App.3d 390] 104(a)). Defendant was subsequently charged with criminal damage to State-supported property (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 38, par. 21-4(a)) arising out of damage to a telephone in the Du Page County jail.
On December 3, 1987, defendant appeared without counsel and pleaded guilty to all of the charges except driving with a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.10 or more, which was nol-prossed. The trial court admonished defendant and advised him of his rights. After accepting the guilty plea, the court fined defendant $500 for the DUI conviction, $60 for the violation of driver's license classification conviction, and $100 for the criminal damage to property conviction. Defendant did not move to vacate his plea within 30 days of the convictions or anytime thereafter.
On July 29, 1988, defendant filed a verified motion pursuant to section 2-1401 of the Code to vacate his conviction of driving while under the influence of alcohol. Defendant's motion alleged that (1) he appeared in court without counsel on December 3, 1987; (2) prior to his case being called, defendant spoke with an assistant State's Attorney regarding a plea of guilty; (3) during this conversation, the assistant State's Attorney indicated to defendant that if he were to plead guilty he would probably receive a sentence of court supervision on the charge of DUI; (4) at no time did the assistant State's Attorney inform defendant that a conviction would result in his driving privileges being revoked for at least one year; (5) defendant was under pressure and without the benefit of counsel to advise him of the potential consequences of his plea; (6) the admonishments by the court were incomplete and insufficient in that they failed to advise him regarding the potential consequences of his plea; (7) defendant's father was terminally ill at the time defendant entered his plea; (8) defendant did not receive his notices of revocation and suspension resulting from his conviction in this matter until after the expiration of 30 days from the December 3, 1987, judgment, thus preventing him from filing a timely post-judgment motion to vacate his plea of guilty; and (9) should the court see fit to vacate the convictions, defendant would be able to present a meritorious defense and extenuating circumstances.
At the hearing on the motion, the trial court ruled that it had not adequately admonished unrepresented DUI defendants in general, and this defendant in particular, as to the potential loss of driving privileges resulting from a conviction of DUI. Accordingly, the court ruled that defendant's motion to vacate would be granted on that basis. The court subsequently entered an order in accordance with its oral ruling and set the matter for further proceedings. The State then brought this timely appeal.
[188 Ill.App.3d 391] We initially note that the State has filed this appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 301 (107 Ill.2d R. 301), which governs appeals from final orders. Because
Page 415
[135 Ill.Dec. 919]...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Robinson, 1-00-3309.
...Post-Conviction Hearing Act. Redmond, 328 Ill.App.3d 373, 263 Ill.Dec. 112, 767 N.E.2d 838, citing 725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(b); Magdaleno, 188 Ill.App.3d at 387, 135 Ill.Dec. 536, 543 N.E.2d 1104, citing People v. Nelson, 182 Ill.App.3d 1071, 1074, 131 Ill.Dec. 747, 538 N.E.2d 1303 (1989). Even t......
-
People v. Reynolds, 1-95-2583
...Rule 304(a), as I have already articulated my belief that our jurisdiction attaches under Rule 307(a)(1). See People v. Smith (1989), 188 Ill.App.3d 387, 391, 135 Ill.Dec. 917, 544 N.E.2d...
-
People v. Terneus, 4-92-0383
...court's failure to admonish defendant of the revocation of his driving privileges is of no consequence * * *." People v. Smith (1989), 188 Ill.App.3d 387, 392, 135 Ill.Dec. 917, 920, 544 N.E.2d 413, 416; see also People v. Thomas (1968), 41 Ill.2d 122, 125-26, 242 N.E.2d 177, 178-79 (discus......
-
People v. Serrano, 1-07-2486.
...at 8, 312 Ill.Dec. 617, 871 N.E.2d 17. The State cites Withers v. People, 23 Ill.2d 131, 177 N.E.2d 203 (1961) and People v. Smith, 188 Ill.App.3d 387, 135 Ill. Dec. 917, 544 N.E.2d 413 (1989), in support of its argument that a Whitfield claim is not cognizable in a section 2-1401 proceedin......
-
People v. Robinson, 1-00-3309.
...Post-Conviction Hearing Act. Redmond, 328 Ill.App.3d 373, 263 Ill.Dec. 112, 767 N.E.2d 838, citing 725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(b); Magdaleno, 188 Ill.App.3d at 387, 135 Ill.Dec. 536, 543 N.E.2d 1104, citing People v. Nelson, 182 Ill.App.3d 1071, 1074, 131 Ill.Dec. 747, 538 N.E.2d 1303 (1989). Even t......
-
People v. Reynolds, 1-95-2583
...Rule 304(a), as I have already articulated my belief that our jurisdiction attaches under Rule 307(a)(1). See People v. Smith (1989), 188 Ill.App.3d 387, 391, 135 Ill.Dec. 917, 544 N.E.2d...
-
People v. Terneus, 4-92-0383
...court's failure to admonish defendant of the revocation of his driving privileges is of no consequence * * *." People v. Smith (1989), 188 Ill.App.3d 387, 392, 135 Ill.Dec. 917, 920, 544 N.E.2d 413, 416; see also People v. Thomas (1968), 41 Ill.2d 122, 125-26, 242 N.E.2d 177, 178-79 (discus......
-
People v. Serrano, 1-07-2486.
...at 8, 312 Ill.Dec. 617, 871 N.E.2d 17. The State cites Withers v. People, 23 Ill.2d 131, 177 N.E.2d 203 (1961) and People v. Smith, 188 Ill.App.3d 387, 135 Ill. Dec. 917, 544 N.E.2d 413 (1989), in support of its argument that a Whitfield claim is not cognizable in a section 2-1401 proceedin......