1 NOTICE Decision fi led 10/21/09. The text of this decision may be changed or correct ed prior

to t he fi ling of a Peti tio n for

Rehearing o r th e disposit ion of

the same. NO. 5-08-0209 I N THE AP PE LLA TE C O U R T O F IL LIN O IS

FI FTH DI STRI CT

____________________________________________ _______________________________ TH E P EO PLE OF TH E ST ATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal f rom the ) Circui t Court of Plaintiff-A ppella nt, ) Clint on County. ) v. ) No. 07-CM-295 ) ROGER G. DETER MAN, ) Ho nora ble ) Kathlee n P. Moran, Defendant-Appe llee

. ) Jud ge, p resid ing.

__________________________________________________________ ________________ JUST ICE W ELC H d elivered th e opin ion o f the co urt: This is a cas e of fi rst impressi on requiring our constr uction of provi sions of

the NonSupport Punishment

Act (t he Act) ( 750 IL CS 16/1 et seq. (West 2006)). The Act prov ides forthe criminal prosecuti on of persons who willful ly fai l to pr ovide fo r the suppo rt of a spouse or child. Secti on 5 of the Act provides as fol lows:

"A proceedi ng for

enforcement

of this Act may be i nsti tuted and prosecut ed by the s eve ral S tate 's Attor neys only upon t

he fil ing of

a veri fied compl aint by t h e person or persons receiving child or spousal support. " 750 ILCS 16 /5 (W est 2006). Sect ion 10 of th e Act provides, " Proceeding s under this Act may be by indi ctment or information." 75 0 ILCS 16/10 (W est 2006). In the case before us , the def endant, Rog er G. Determan, was charge d on October 26, 2007, by an inform ation file d in the circuit co urt of C linton C oun ty, w ith a failure to sup port, in that he had willf

ully f aile d to pay, f

or more than s ix months , a support oblig ationordered by a court and that he was in arr ears i n excess of $5,000, in v iolation of se ction 15( a)(2) of the Act (750 ILCS 16/15(a)( 2) (West 2006)). The offense charged is a Class A2

misdemea nor. 750 IL CS 16/15(b) (West 2006). The i nformat ion was based o n a form "Co mplain t" provi ded by the off ice o f the State 's Attor ney that had been fi lled in by the person entitled to r eceiv e support , Krist a Mason, veri fied, and left with the S tate 's Attor

ney. This com plaint was n ot attached to o r filed with the inform ation. Subsequent ly, t

he defendant

fil ed a moti on to dismiss the inf ormati on, all egi ng that Krista M ason had e xecu ted a "W it hdra wal of Complai nt," had wit hdrawn the compla int executedby herin the o ffice of th e State's Attorn ey, a nd w ished to termin ate the p roc eed ings against the defe ndant. The mot ion asse rted t hat pur suant to section 5 of the Act, a proceedi ng und er the A ct cou ld only be ins tit uted and pros ecuted upon t he fil ing of

a veri fied complai nt by the pers on entitled to r eceiv e support and that because no such c omplaint was
on fil e, the a ction m ust be dismiss ed. A "W ithdraw al of C omp laint" ex ecute d by Krista Mason was attac hed to the motion t o dismi ss. It appear s from t he record t

hat the defendant and Krista

Mason had reache d an ou t-o f-court settleme nt of t he disput e and that

the defendant

was goingto pay some of the past -due support

owed and r emai n cur rent on his obligation. A t the hear ing on t

he motion to dismi ss, t

he defendant

argued t hat the ch ar ge wa s insuff icie nt and hadto be dis missed be cause no ve rif ied compl aint ha d been filed in co urt by the pers on entitled to r eceiv e support and the i nformat ion alone was not suff icie nt. The def endant arg ued th at purs uant to section 5 of th e Act, b efore th e State's Attorn ey co uld institute and prosec ute the case, the verified complaint had to be filed in cou rt. The Stat e' s Att orney argued that once the compl aint was f iled wit h his off ice, i t was leftto his discretion w hether to pro secute the d efendant and the compl ainant

could not "wi th dr aw" her complaint and subvert t hat discreti on. He argued that this case should be treat ed li ke an y o th er ca se co m m en ce d b y a cr im in al co m pl ai nt fi le d w it h t he St at e's At to rn ey 's office: th e State's Attorn ey revie ws th e com plaint, whether in t he form of

a polic e3

report or traffic c itation, a nd in the exer cise of his di scret ion decides whether to f ile c rimi nal charges. In r ulingon the moti on, the ci rcuit court cons trued t

he word "fil ing" in section 5 of the Act t o mean that

the proce edingcould only be inst itut ed upo n th e filin g of a verifi ed complai nt in the c ircuit court . Accordi ngly, the cour t ruled th at the sta tute req uires th at a veri fiedcomplai nt be fi led in c ourt, by t he personentitled to receive s upp ort, eithe r prior to
or conte mpo raneo usly w ith th e fil ing of th e i nf or m at io n o r i nd ic tm en t b y t he St at e's Attor ney. The court f

urther ruled t hat the compl ainant

has the right

to withdr aw her complai nt before i t is fil ed in court and that the compl ainant

in the c ase at bar had done so. Accordingly, the c ourt granted the de fendant's motion to dism iss the information. On a motion for reconsideration the court enter ed a written order as foll ows: "The Court beli eves that the st atute [cit ation] requir es that a veri fied compl aint be attach ed to th e Inform ation in orde r to com ply w ith the st atute [,] which s ays that the State m ay pr ocee d on ly upon the ' fil ing of a verifi ed complai nt by the pe rson or persons rec eiving child or spousal sup port.' The perso n w ho sign ed the com plaint a ppea red in c ourt an d sou ght to withdraw the co mplain t prior to th e ti me tha t it w as filed in court. Th is Court belie ves that sinc e the c omp laint ha d no t yet bee n fil ed and att ached to t he Inf ormati on that [ sic ] the Inform ation w as void a nd th at M iss M ason had th e right to withdraw her complaint pri or to t he fil ing of the I nf

ormati on with the c omplaint atta ched. This C ourt hereb y grants th e M otion to Dism iss." (E mph asis in original.) The St ate a

ppeal s. We aff

irm

. As the ci rcuit

court cor

rectly pointed out , ther e is no case la w int erpreting or constr uing section 5 of the Act. We do so here as a matter of fir st impressi on, and because matters of statutor

y inter pr eta tion present questi ons of law, our review is de novo . See4

People v. B rown , 229 Ill. 2d 374, 3 82 (200 8). On appeal, t

he State first argues that the ci rcuit

court er red in cons trui ng the Act to require the f

iling of a verifi ed complai nt with t he circ uit cour

t, as oppos ed to finding t hat fil ing th e v er if

ie d c omp la int withth e o ff ic e o f t he St at e' s A ttorne y wa s s uf fi ci en t. Whenwe inter preta stat

ute, our pr imary object ive is t o ascert ain and g ive effect to the intent of

the leg isl ature. Br own , 229 Il l. 2d at 382. Leg isl ativ e inte nt is det ermined by cons idering the langu age of the s tatute, gi ven i ts pl ain a nd ordinar y meaning , as wellas the pur pose and
nece ssity for the law, the evils sought to be remed ied, and the goals to be achieved

. Br own , 229 Il l. 2d at

382-83. Each word, cl ause, and sentenc e of the s tatut e must be g ive n a reasonabl e meaningand must not be rendered superfluous, unless to do so w ould result in absurdi ty, inconvenien ce, or injustice. Br own , 229 I ll. 2d at 383. Wo rds and phrases must not be vi ewed in isol ationbut must be consider ed in li ght of other r elev ant prov isi ons of the statute. People v. Beachem , 229 Ill. 2d 237, 2 43 (200 8). Pursuant to our Code of Cri minal Pr ocedure of 1963 ( the Code), a " com plain t" is defined as "a v erif

ied writ ten st atement

other t han an info rmation or an indictm ent, presented to a court , which charges the com mission of an o ff ens e. " ( Emph as is add ed. ) 7 25 I LCS 5/102-9 (West 2006). This is the most common def inition of t

he word "complai nt" i n the context of a cri minal proceeding . I n order t o "present " a complaint to a co urt, it is necessary that it befil ed with the clerk of the court. People v. Bill ings , 52 Ill. App. 3d 414, 42 5 (1977 ). A document i s "fi led" when it i s deli vered to the proper offi cerwith the intenti on of having the document k ept on fi le by that off icer in the prope r place. Vali o v. Board of F ire & Police Com missioners of the V ill age of It asca , 311 Ill. App. 3d 3 21, 327 (2000). Thus, the pr oper offi cer with whom to f

ile a complai nt is the cl erk of the court , not t

he State' s Att orney. We must conclude, ther efore, that wit hin the c ontext of

secti on 5 of the Act , the phrase "upon t

he filing of a verifie d com plaint" re fers to the f iling in the circuit

courtof a5

veri fiedwritt en stat ement char ging the com mission of an offen se. Ac cord ingly, the circuit court prop erly inte rpreted the Ac t as req uiring tha t befor e the State 's Attorney could institute the crim inal p roc eed ing b y filin g an in form ation , the per son entit led to rece ive support had to have filed in the ci rcuit court a v erif

ied compl aint c harging the defendant with the commission of an offen se. The Stat e argues, however, t hat the purpose of t

he requir ement that a v erif ied complai nt be f

iled i s to give no tice to the State's Attorne y that th e com plaina nt w ishes to pr osec ute and th at, there fore, it m akes sen se that th e filing sho uld b e w ith the St ate' s Attor ney and no t with t

he circ uit cour

t. We reject

the St ate' s assumpt ion reg ardingthe pur pose of the r equirement that a veri fied compl aint be fil ed. I t is speculative an d unsupporte d by leg isl ativ e hist ory, case law, orlogi c. P ro vi di ng no ti ce to th e S ta te 's Attor ney of the f

iling of the v erif iedcomplai nt is a simpl e matt er of del ive ringto his offi ce
a copy of the f

ile-stamp ed co mplain t. As the def endant poi nts out , a more l ike ly purpose of the requ ir emen t that a verifie d com plaint b e filed is to impre ss up on th e com plaina nt th e seriousness of the pr oceedi ng and to enco urage h ones ty and accu racy in proc eedin gs to enforce su ppo rt oblig ations . This purpos e is bet ter s erved by requiring the fil ing of the verified complaint w ith the circuit court. The Stat e also argues t

hat our interpr et ation of secti on 5 of the Act

frust rates and inter feres with the S tate 's Attor ney 's exclu siv e discr etion to initiate and manage criminal prosecut ions. S ee People exrel. Dale y v. Moran , 94 Ill. 2d 41, 45 (1983) (" It is a f amili ar and firmly established princip le that the State's Attorney, as a memb er of the ex ecu tive bra nch of go vernment , is v ested wit h the exclusiv e discr etion in the initiation and management

of a crimi nal pros ecuti on"). Ag ain, we dis agree . Under our int erpret ation of secti on 5, the Stat e's At torney retains hi s discre tion ove r wh ether a nd h ow to pro secu te individu als under the Ac t. Eve n after the fi lingwith the c ourt of a veri fied compl aint, the6

St at e's Attor

ney sti ll r etai ns discr etionregarding whether to f ile an infor

mation or

indict ment to commence the pr osecuti on and reta ins the discr etion to therea fter manage t

he criminal prosecution

. The Stat e next argues t

hat because the inf

ormati on stri ctly c omplied wit h the ple ading requ iremen ts of

se ct io n 11 1- 3 of

th e Cod e ( 725 I LCS 5/111-3 (W est 2006)), the circuit court had no authori ty to di smiss it. See Peop le v. DiLorenzo , 169 I ll. 2d 318, 321-22 (1996) (when the suf

fici ency of the charging ins trument is attack ed in a pre tri al motion, the stan dard of revi ew is to det ermine whethe r the instru men t strictly co mplies with the requirements of secti on 111-3 of

the Code). The S tate argues that, because the infor mation f iled by t he St at e's Attor

ney str ictly complie d with section 111-3, it was wholly suf fici ent and need not have been support ed by another form of a charging instrument, such as a verified co mplain t. The Stat e furt

her argues that, had th e leg isl ature intended that a v erif ied compl aint be a necessary part of

the char ginginstrument, it coul d have re quired in secti on 10 of the Act that pro cee din gs under the Ac t be brought by "i nformat ion or i ndictme nt accompani ed by veri fied complaint." We conc lude th at, regardless of the le gal suffi ciency of the inf ormati on fil ed by the St at e's Attor

ney, pursuant

to section 5 of t

he Act, t he State' s Att orney had no autho rity to file that infor mation until t

he person entitl ed to rec eiv e support had fil ed a verifi ed c omp lain t with the ci rcuit

court. This int erpret ation of secti on 5 is not

inconsi stent

with section 10 of the Act, which provi des that proceedi ngs under

the Act may be by indi ctment

or inf ormati on. W hile the veri fied compl aint may not be suf fici ent under t

he Act t o inst itut e or commence the p roceedi ng, i t is a necessar y prerequi sit e to the fil ing by t he State' s Att orney of

th e charging instrum ent, w hich d oes in stitute or commence the proceedi ng. While t he veri fied complai nt is not a necessa ry part of the ch arging instru men t, it is a nec essary prereq uisite to the fil ing by t

he State' s Att orney of t

he chargin g instrum ent. B ecau se this prerequi sit e had7

not be en fu lf

il le d i n t he ca se at ba r, th e S ta te 's Attor ney had n o auth ority un der the Act to file an information and the circu it court did not err in dismissing the info rmation. Finally, the State argue s that the ci rcuit

court er red in r ulingthatMason had the right to with draw her co mplain t after she had p rovided it to th e State' s Att orney and the infor mationbase d there on h ad be en filed . Th e State argues that the power to dismiss crimi nal charge s rest s with the State' s Att orney, not with the complai ning witness, and that
once a com plaint is sign ed, th e furth eranc e and prose cution of the c riminal a ction is in the controlof the S tate 's Attor ney and a pri vat e complai nant cannot withdraw he r c omp laint. See People v. Scribner , 108 Ill. App. 3d 1 138, 11 43 (198 2). We find no er

ror i n the ci rcuit

court al lowing Mason to " withdraw" her co mpla int. It had not been f

iled in the ci rcuit

court as requir ed by secti on 5 of the Act . Accordi ngly, there was really nothi ng to withdr aw. Secti on 5 of the Act requir es that

the v erif

ied complai nt be fil ed by the pers on entitled to receive support , n ot by th e St ate 's At to rn ey . It could not b e filed w ith the court by the St ate' s Att orney because the Act requir es that

it be fil ed by the pe rson entitled to receive sup port. Because no such complaint was ever fil ed by the per son entit led to rece ive support, the circuit co urt did n ot err in ru ling that M ason could "withdraw " her com plaint from the State's Attorney. For the f ore goin g reas ons , w e aff irm th e jud gm ent of th e circ uit cour t of Clinton Cou nty.

Affi rmed.

GO LDE NH ER SH, J., con curs.

JU STIC E D ON OV AN , spe cially con cur ring:8

I concur in t

he majori ty' s decis ion to af fir m the judgment of t

he circuit court of ClintonCou nty. I agree that the issue involv es the interpr etat ion of statutor y provi sions of the Non-Support

Punishment

Act (Ac t) ( 750 IL CS 16/1 et seq. (West 2006)) and t hat rev iew is de novo . Under the r ules of stat utory cons truction, as t he majori ty has not ed, allthe provi sions of a st atutor y enactment

should be v iewed as a whole, and words and claus es shou ld be consider ed in li ghtof other relev ant statut ory provisions, s o that e ach is g ive n a
reaso nable meaning and is not rendered superfluous. People v. Beachem , 229 Il l. 2d 237, 243, 890 N.E.2d 515, 519 (200 8); Peop le v. B otruff , 212 I ll. 2d 166, 174, 817 N.E.2d 463, 468 (2004). Af

ter r evi ewing secti on 5 and secti on 10 of the Act (750 ILCS 16/5, 10 (West 2006)) and c onsid ering the goals to b e ach ieved an d the e vils to be avoid ed in the le gislative enactment, I conclude that these provi sions aut

horize a prosecut or, in hi s or her discr etion, to fil e an infor

mationin the c ircu it cour t eit her subseque nt to or

in conjunc tion and simultan eous ly with the victim's fil ing of a veri fied compl aint in the ci rcu it co urt al leg ing that a defendant

has wilf ully refused t o p ay suppor t. This interpretation of the s tatutory procedu re serves to preserv e the prose cutor's disc retion re garding w hethe r and how to prose cute crimi nal violations , and itserves t o impress upon the complainant the seriousness of th e p ro ce ed in gs . Th e r ec or d i n thi s c as e c le ar lysh ows that t he p erso n en titled to re ceive the supp ort did n ot file a verified com plaint in the circ uit cou rt either p rior to o r in conjunct ion with t

he fil ing of

the information b y the prose cutor. Th e circuit court did not err i n dismi ssingthe inf ormati on.NO. 5-08-0209 I N THE AP PE LLA TE C O U R T O F IL LIN O IS

FI FTH DI STRI CT

___________________________________________________________________________________ TH E P EO PLE OF TH E ST ATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal f rom the ) Circui t Court of Plaintiff-A ppella nt, ) Clint on County. ) v. ) No. 07-CM-295 ) ROGER G. DETER MAN, ) Ho nora ble ) Kathlee n P. Moran, Defendant-Appe llee

. ) Jud ge, p resid ing.

___________________________________________________________________________________ Opini on Fi led : October 21, 2009

___________________________________________________________________________________ Justi ces : Honorable Th omas M . Welch, J.

Honorable Richar d P. Goldenhersh, J., and Con curs Hon orable Jame s K. D onovan, J., Speci ally Concur

ring

___________________________________________________________________________________ Attorn eys Hon. Henry Bergmann, S tate 's Attor ney, Clinton County Courthouse, 850 Fairf ax for Street, Carly le, IL 622 31; P atrick D elfino, Acting D irector, Ste phen E. N orris, D eputy Appe llant Director , Rebecca E. McCormick, S taff Attor ney, Offic e of the S tate 's Attor neys App ellate Prosecut or, 730 E. Illinois H wy . 15, Su ite 2, P .O. Bo x 22 49, M t. Vernon, IL62864

___________________________________________________________________________________ Attorn eys Michael J. Pell etie r, St ate Appel late Defender, Johanna h B. W eber, D eputy D efender, for Office of the State Ap pellate D efend er, 11 7 N . Ten th Street, Suit e 300, Mt. Vernon, Appell ee IL62864

___________________________________________________________________________________