No. 2-- 06--1044 Fil ed: 10-24-07

______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS SECOND DI STRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPL

E OF TH E STATE ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court OF ILLINOIS, ) o f Mc He nr y Co un t y. ) Pl ai n ti f f -A pp el l an t, )

) v. ) No. 06-- TR--22191 ) SAM C . MAR SALA, ) Ho no r ab le ) Go r do n E . Gr ah am, Defe ndan t-Appell ee. ) Judge, Presi din g.

______________________________________________________________________________ JU STI CEMc LA

RE N del i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: The St at e a pp ea ls fr o m ano r de ro f t he cir cu it cou rt of Mc Henr y Cou nty gra nti ng the pe ti ti on of defen dant, Sam C. Mars al a, to resci nd the sum

ma ry s uspens ion of

hi s driv in g priv il eges (see 625 ILCS 5/11-- 501.1 (We st 2002 )). The St at e co nt ends t hat t he t rial co ur t er re d in gr ant ingdefend ant 's petition, b ecause def

endan t faile d to ma

ke a pr ima fa cie case. We rev erse. Defend ant 's dr iving pr ivileg es we r e s umma ril y su spe nded on t he bas is tha t , a fte r be ing arrestedby

a M cH en ry Cou nty sh eri f f 's pol i ceof f i cer f or dr i vi ng un der the i nf l uenc e of al coh ol (DUI), he su b m i tted to testing that

reveal ed an alcohol conc en tration of 0 .121 (6 25 IL CS 5/1 1--501 (a)(1), (a)(2) (Wes t 200 2) ). At t he hea ring o n his pet itio n, defen dant proceededon two gr ounds: fi rst, t hat t he arresting of

fi cer did n ot have reasonabl

e grounds to bel

ie ve that defe

ndan t was in actual phy sical con trol o f a mo t o rve hic le w hile u nd er t he influ en ce ; a ndse co nd , t ha t t he no t ice o f su mmar yNo. 2-- 06--1044

-2-

su sp ensi on was deficient beca use it failed t o a llege fact s est ablishing that defenda

nt was operating a motor vehicl e whi

le under the i

nf lue nce. In su pp o rt o f his pet itio n, d efenda nt pr ese nt ed t he t est imony o f Offic er Mc Ke nz ie. Mc Ke nz ie was on d ut y dur ing the early even in g of Apri l 19, 2006, an

d he arrested def

endan t o n that date. The re were no outst andi ng warrants f

or defendan

t's arrest. When

asked whe

ther he obser

ve d defend ant dri

ve a m otor v ehi cl e, McKen

zi e responded: "No." Wh en asked w

hether he observed defend ant com

m i t a traf f i c v i ol ati on , M cK en zi e res pon de d: "N o." A

t th at point, de fen

se counsel termi nated his examinat ion. When t he co ur t ask ed t he St at e whe t her it w ished t o c ro ss- examine McKenz ie, t he State res

ponde d: "Nothi

ng a t thi s poi nt." Th ereaf ter, def en se c ouns el

m oved f or a directed f i n di n g, s tati n g: "Th ere is n

o--I ' v e m et m y b urden . N o wa

rra n t, no ob servati

on of any crim e. Burden wo uld shift t o t he St at e and they hav en't put o n any

evidence." The

State also m

oved f or a directed finding, st at ing: "T he pe t itio ner has p ut for t h no evidenc e t o e st ablish tha t [t he o ffice r ] did not have reasonabl

e grounds to bel

ie ve that [defen

dant] was i

n actual phy sical contro l wh

il e under t he i nf l uen ce. It's t hei

r burden to put for th eviden ce which would establish

that and they

have fai le d to do so." T he State also stated: "And a s t o t he not ice o f summary sus pens ion being insu ffi cient , w e'd ask that our motion b e granted. They fai le d to put forth any

evi dence that would establi

sh that notice wasi ns uf f i cien t." The t r ial c o ur t gr an t ed de fen da nt 's p et it io n t o r es cin d, st at ing : " T he o nly t est imony

wa s t his off ic er did n't se e t his p er so n d o an yt hing illeg al. It 's a mak e- your -o wn DU I, but he didn' t ma ke i t." Wh en t he St at e a r gu ed t ha t it did n ot h av e th e op por tun i ty to put o n i

ts case once the burden

shi fted, t he court responded: "Unde r the law, at the concl

usion of the evi

dence that was presen

ted, do ne.No. 2-- 06--1044

-3-

You can't chang e t he fact t hat he neve r sa w t he gu y driving t he ca r. " The co ur t did no t ex plic it ly ru le on the Stat e's m

ot ion f or a directed fi

ndi ng. On Ju l y 26 , 20 06 , the S tate

f i l ed a m otion f or re con si dera ti on . Th e S tate argued that the trial court erred

i n n ot granti ng th e State' s m

otion f or adire ct ed finding a fte r d efenda nt rested hi s case. The State also argued that the tri al courterred

i n g ran ti ng de f en da nt' s p eti ti on befo re allowing t he Sta te t o p re sent its c ase . At t he heari ng, the trial

court reviewed the transcri pt and stated t hat when t he parties m

ade cr o ss - mo t io ns for a dir ect ed finding, t he o ffi cer 's t est imony est ablished t hat t he off ic er "had no t ev en se en [ de fen da nt ] in the c ar or dri

vi ng th e ca r. Tha t's th e onl y thi ng th e court had. " The t rial co ur t denied t he mot ion. The Stat e fi

le d a ti mel y noti ceof ap pe al. De fen da nt ha s no t filed an ap pe llat e b r ief, bu t t his appeal i s a men ab l e to de cisio n o n t he me rit s u nde r t he p rinc iples o f Fi rst Cap ito l Mor t gag e Co rp . v. Talan dis Construction Corp. , 63 Il l . 2d 128 , 133 (1 976). The Stat e contends that the trial court erred in

grantin g defen dant 's p et it io n t o r es cin d h is sum mary suspension. Accordin

g to the Stat e, def

endan t faile d to present a pr ima fa cie ca se f or resci ssion and, eve

n if h e had, the trial

court erred

i n n ot all owi ng th e State to pres en

t itscas e. We agree. Sec

ti on 11--501.1(a) of

the Il li noi s Veh i cle Code (625 IL CS 5/11-- 5 01.1(a ) (We st 2002 )) pro vides, i

n p erti ne nt p art, tha

t "[a ]n y pers on wh o dri ve s or i s i n a ctu al ph y si cal con trol of a m otor ve hic le upo n t he pu blic highw ays of th i s S tatesh

al l be de em ed to ha ve gi ve n c ons en t *** to a chem ic al test o r tests o f blood, bre at h, o r u rine fo r t he pu rp os e o f det er mini ng the con ten t of al coh ol
** * i n th e p er son

' s bl ood i f ar re ste d * ** f

or [DUI ]." If

a m otorist s ub m i ts to testing that

reveals a bl ood alcohol l

evel i n ex ce ss of th e l eg al li m i t, or i f h e or sh e ref us es to s ub m i t to testing, hi

s or herNo. 2-- 06--1044

-4-

dr iving priv il eg es will be s ummar ily sus pe nde d by t he S ec re t ar y of S t at e u po n t he s ubmis sio n o f a sworn report of th

e arre sti ng of f i cer. 62 5 ILC S 5/11 --501.1 (d), (e) (W est 200 2). A m

ot orist whose dr iving priv il eges hav e been sum ma ril y s uspended m

ay request a judi

ci al he ari ng at whi ch to seek resc i ssi on of the s uspe ns i on. 625 ILCS 5/2--1 18.1 (W est 200 2). A he ari ng on a pe ti ti on to res cin d a su mmar y su sp en sio n o f dr iving pr ivileg es is a civ il proceedin g. Pe opl e v . Sm i th , 172 Ill . 2d289, 29 4-95 (1 996); People v . Wile y , 333 Ill . App. 3d 861, 863 (2002). The defen

dant bear s th e burd en

of proo f an d, if he establ is hes a pr ima fa cie ca se

f or r es cis sion, i.e. , i f

he "pre sen t[s] at least so me evidenc e o n ever y element es senti al to hi s c au se of act ion" (em

phasi s ad ded) (Ko kin is v. Kotrich , 81 I ll. 2d 15 1, 1 54(1 98 0) ), th

en th e b urden sh i f ts to t he State to come

f orward with e vi dence j ustif y i ng th e su spens i on. Sm

i th , 17 2 Ill. 2d at 295 ; Wi

le y , 333 Ill . App. 3d at 863. A defen dant's f ailure to establis

h a pr ima fa cie case warrants a di re cted f i ndi ng i n f avor of the State. Peo ple v. Haw kins , 221 Ill . App. 3d 460, 46 4 (199 1). A

t rial co ur t 's determi nation of a pr ima fac ie case wil

l n ot be di sturbed o n appeal un less i t is again st the mani

fest wei ght of the e vi den ce. People v . Fort ney

, 297 Il l . Ap p. 3d 79 , 88 (19 98). The evidenc e pr ese nt ed by de fendant estab li sh ed tha t Mc Ken zi e di d n ot obs er ve de fendant dr iving a m ot or vehicl e. Based

t her eo n, t he t rial co ur t gr ant ed d efenda nt 's pe t itio n, st at ing: "T he o nly t est imony was thi s off

ic er didn 't see thi s person do any

thin g il le gal . It's a make-y

our-o wn DUI, but he didn't make it ." Altho ugh M cKenz ie's test im ony m ay h ave been s uff ici ent to establish

a pr ima fa cie case t ha t Mc Ke nz ie d id

not have a reasonabl

e basi s to conclude that defendant was dr iving a m otor ve hic le whi

le under the in fl uence, def

endan t presented no evidence on the issueo f wh et he rMc Ke nz ie had a re as ona bl e b as i s to c onc l

ude tha t de f en da nt wasi n a ctu al ph y si cal con trol of a m otorveh ic le . It i s wel l estab li sh ed th at a person need n

ot driv e to be in actual phy sical contro l of

a veh ic le . SeeNo. 2-- 06--1044

-5-

Ci ty of Na pervi l l e v . Wats on , 175 Ill . 2d 399, 402 (1997) (and cases ci ted therein). Notabl

y, the tria l co ur t 's sum

ma ry on recons ide

r at ion of the off ic er's testim

ony--that the off

ic er "had n

ot even seen [d ef en da n t] in the c ar or dr iving the car"--was not accurate. The offi cer testifi ed onl y tha t he di d n ot seedefendan

t dr iv in g the car. Because de f

en da n t f ai l ed to establ is h a pr ima fa cie ca se

f or re sc i ss i on based on his a llegat ion t ha t Mc Ke nz ie d id n o t ha ve r ea so nable gr o un ds t o be lieve t ha t he wa s in actual ph y si cal con trol of a m otorve hic le while unde r t he influence, t he t rial co ur t er re d in gr ant ing t he pe ti ti on a nd i n f ai li ng to gr ant t he Stat e's m

ot ion f or a directed fi

ndi ng on that basis. See Haw kins , 221 Ill . App. 3d at 464 (p eti ti one r's failur e t o int ro duc e evide nce o n ever y element ne ces sary to hi s ca use of a cti on wa rran ts a di rected f i ndi ng f or the State). We al so note t hat defe

ndan t faile d to put for t h any

ev ide nc e t o su pp o rt his allegat ion t hat t he noticeof sum

ma ry s uspens ion was def

ic ie nt in that it fai

le d to alle ge fac ts that defendan t was op er at inga mo t o rve hic le w hile under t he influence. The re for e, t he t rial co ur t er re d in faili ng t o g ra nt t he St at e' s mo t io n fo ra d ire ct ed find ing o n t his b as is a s w ell. For the forego in

g reasons, t he judg ment o f the ci rcuit court o f M cHenry

County is reversed. Reversed. BOW MA N an d ZEN OFF , JJ., c oncu

r.