NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). 20 2 1 IL App ( 3d ) 1 8 0 630 Order filed February 5, 2021

____________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT 2021 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) ILLINOIS, ) ) Plaintiff

- Appellee, ) ) v. ) ) JOHN M. BROSE , ) ) Defendant-Appellant. ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of the 14 th Judicial Circuit, Henry County , Illinois

. Appeal No. 3-18-0630 Circuit No. 17- CF -13 Honorable Terrance M. Patton , Judge, Presiding.

____________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE LYTTON delivered the jud gment of the court

. Justices O’B rien and Schmidt concurred in the judgment.

____________________________________________________________________________ O RDER ¶ 1 Held : Because p rior DUI convictions do not constitute an element of an aggravated DUI charge , evidence was sufficient to prove defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt where State offered proof of prior DUI convictions at sentencing hearing rather than at trial. ¶ 2 Following a jury trial, d efendant, John M. Brose, was convicted of aggravated driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) (625 ILCS 5/11 -501 (a) (2), (d)(1)(A) , ( d)(2)(B) (West 2016)). Based on his p rior DUI convictions, the trial court sentenced him to 5 years in prison as a Class 2 felony offender. H e appeals, claiming that his conviction should be reduced to a Class A2 misdemeanor because t he State failed to present evidence of his prior DUI violat ions to the jury as an element of the offense . W e affirm. ¶ 3 I. BACKGROUN D ¶ 4 In January 2017, defendant was charged by information with two counts of aggravated DUI . Count 1 of the information charged defendant with aggravated DUI as a Cl ass 2 felony , alleging that on January 10, 2017, defendant drove his vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and violated section 11

- 501(a) of the Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ICLS 5/11 -501 et seq . (West 2016)) for the third or subsequent time (625 ILCS 5/11 -501(a) (2) , (d)(1)(A), (d)(2)(B) (West 2016 )) . Count 2 charged defendant with aggravated DUI as a Class 4 felony, alleging that defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol while his license was revoked (625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)( 2), (d)(1)(G), (d)(2)(A) (West 2016))

. ¶ 5 D efendant filed a motion in limine requesting, among other things, that the court bar any evidence concerning his prior misdemeanor convictions, with the exception of h is prior DUI convictions in 2003 (No. 03

- DT -349) and 1996 (No. 96

- DT -42). At the hearing on the motion, defense counsel informed the court th at the parties had reached an agreement to exclude the misdemeanors referenced in the motion. The prosecutor agreed that the misdemeanors would not be introduced and stated that “[t]here would be no discussion about the prior DUIs” at trial, noting that th ose violations were an issue for sentencing. ¶ 6 On the morning of trial, the court opened the proceedings with the following discussion : “ THE COURT: Ok. Some of these are lesser

- includeds [ sic ] or felony upgrades, so we need to be clear what —how many counts are going to the jury and what they’re deciding. 17 CF 13, Count 1 is a DUI upgrade to a felony because of a prior conviction. Obviously, the jury doesn’t get told of the prior conviction[s]. As far as3 they’re concerned, that ’s a straight DUI. That’s 17 DT 8 upgraded to a felony. So the way I look at it, they’re told that’s one count of driving under the influence of alcohol. Does anybody disagree with that? [ DEFENSE COUNSEL ] : I agree. [ ASSISTANT STATE’S ATTORNEY ]: I do not disagree.” ¶ 7 The t rial court empaneled the jury and informed them that the parties had stipulated that defendant’s driving privileges were revoked on the day in question. Officer John Gearhart testified that he saw defendant at a gas station and determined that defendant’s license was revoked. He then observed defendant drive away and cross the yellow line several times. He stopped defendant and asked him to perform several field sobriety tests. Defendant failed the walk -and- turn test and refused to take the one

- leg -stand test or the breath test. Gearhart opined that based on defendant’s failed field sobriety test, his glassy and bloodshot eyes , and the smell of alcohol emanating from his breathe, defendant was unfit to drive a motor vehicle due to alcohol impairment. Port ions of the traffic stop video were also admitted into evidence and played for the jury. ¶ 8 At the conclusion of the trial, the court provided the jury with instructions and verdict forms for count 1, “driving under the influence of alcohol,” and count 2, “driving under the influence of alcohol while license revoked.” Following deliberations, the jury found defendant guilty of both
counts. ¶ 9 At sentencing, the trial court inquired whether the State had any evidence of prior DUIs that justify count 1 bein g classified as a Class 2 felony. The S tate presented defendant’s certified driving abstract, reflecting two prior convictions for DUI . Defense counsel stipulated to the abstract , and it was admitted . The court then continued:4 “THE COURT: So do you agree, Mr. Hoelscher [DEFENSE ATTORNEY], that this DUI would have been the third or subsequent DUI? [DEFENSE ATTORNEY]: We agree that it’s the third DUI, Your Honor. THE COURT: Ok. All right. Then Count 1, the felony DUI, the def endant will be sentenced as a Class 2 , ***. Counts 1 and 2 are both felony DUIs: Count 1, because it ’ s his third, Count 2, because he was

— allegedly, at the time, his license was revoked for a DUI, but it turns out it wasn’t revoked for a DUI. Is that correct? [ASSISTANT STATE’S ATTOR NEY]: That is correct. Your Honor.” The State conceded that count 2 should be reduced to a Class A misdemeanor. The court concluded that the misdemeanor offense merged into the Class 2 felony DUI and sentenced defendant to 5 years in prison on count 1, aggravated DUI. ¶ 10 II. ANALYSIS ¶ 11 Defendant maintains that subsection (d)(2)(B) of the DUI statute denotes an additional element for aggravated DUI that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. He contends that because the State failed to pr esent any evidence to the jury establishing his prior DUI violations , his conviction should be reduced to a Class A misdemeanor. ¶ 12 Although defendant frames his contention as a sufficiency of the evidence argument, t he issue before us i nvolves the proper construction of section 11-501(d) (2)(B) of the Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/11

- 501(d)(2)(B) (West 2016))

. Questions of statutory construction invoke de

novo review. See People ex rel. Glasgow v. Carlson , 2016 IL 120544, ¶ 16. ¶ 13 Our principle objective in construing a statute is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature. Town & Country Utilities, Inc. v. I llinois Pollution Control Board , 225 Ill.2d 103, 117 (2007) . The most reliable indica tor of the legislature’s intent is the language of the statute5 itself. Id. Where t he statutory language is clear and unambiguous, it must be applied as written, without resorting to other aids of statutory construction. Village of Chatham v. County of Sangamon , 216 Ill. 2d 402, 429 (2005). In so doing, we must construe the statute as a whole and read the relevant provisions within the context of the statute, as written. Rogers v. Imeri , 2013 IL 115860, ¶ 13. A reviewing court must a void reading into the statute exceptions, limitations, or conditions that are not consistent with the express legislative intent. In re N.C. , 2014 IL 116532, ¶ 50. ¶ 14 Section 11- 501 of the Illinois Vehicle Code provides the parameters for the offense of DUI, making it unlawful to operate a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or intoxicating compounds. See 625 ILCS 5/11-501 (a) -(h) (West 2016). S ubsection (a) describes the elements of the offense as : (1) driving or in actual physical control of any vehicle ; (2) while under the influence of alcohol. Id. § 11-501(a) (2) (West 2016). Subsections (c) and (d) outline sentencing enhancement factors for violations of subsection (a) as follows: “ (c) Penalties. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this Section, any person convicted of violating subsection (a) of this Section is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. (2) A person who violates subsection (a) or a similar provision a second time shall be sentenc ed to a mandatory minimum term of either 5 days of imprisonment or 240 hours of community service in addition to any other criminal or administrative sanction. * * * (d) Aggravated driving under the influence of alcohol, other drug or drugs, or intoxicating compound or compounds, or any combination thereof.6 (1) Every person convicted of committing a violation of this Section shall be guilty of aggravated driving under the influence of alcohol, other drug or drugs, or intoxicating compound or compounds, or any combination thereof if: (A) the person committed a violation of subsection (a) or a similar provision for the third or subsequent time ; * * * (2) (A) Except as provided otherwise, a person convicted of aggravated driving under the influence of alcohol, other drug or drugs, or intoxicating compound or compounds, or any combination thereof is guilty of a Class 4 felony. (B) A third violation of this Section or a similar provision is a Class 2 felony. *** (C) A fourth violation of this Section or a similar provision is a Class 2 felony, for which a sentence of probation or conditional discharge may not be imposed. *** (D) A fifth violation of this Section or a similar provision is a Class 1 felony, for which a sentence of probation or co nditional discharge may not be imposed. *** (E) A sixth or subsequent violation of this Section or similar provision is a Class X felony. *** ” Id. § 11-501 (c)

- (d)(2)( E) (West 2016). ¶ 15 Reviewing the plain language of these subsections it is clear that the l egislature intended to impose sentencing classifications for second or subsequent DUI violations ranging from a7 misdemeanor to a Class X felony. Subsection (c) classifies the initial offense as a Class A misdemeanor and defines penalties for first and seco nd offenders, including 240 hours of community service. Id. § 11- 501(c) (West 2016). S ubsection (d) denotes a third or higher violation

as aggravated DUI and enumerates felony classifications for each subsequent violation. Id. § 11- 501(d) (1), (2) (West 201 6). ¶ 16 In People v. Van Schoyck , 232 Ill. 2d 330 (2009), t he Illinois S upreme Court interpreted subsection (c) and concluded that the enumerated penalties were not elements of the charged DUI offense. Van Schoyck , 232 Ill. 2d at 337 . In that case , the court emphasized that the plain language of the DUI statute clearly expressed the legisl ature’s intent: “U nder the plain language of the statute, there is only one offense of driving under the influence. [Citation.] Subsection (a) sets forth the elements for the offense and classifies the offense as a Class A misdemeanor. The enhancing fact ors in subsection (c) do not create a new offense, but rather serve only to enhance the punishment. [Citation.]” Id. The court concluded that “[s] ection 11 -501 therefore operates just as any other statute which initially sets forth the elements of the o ffense and then, in a separate action, provides sentencing classifications based on other factors.” Id

. ; see also People v. Martin , 2011 IL 109102, ¶ 2 4 (noting that “aggravated DUI is simply misdemeanor DUI with an aggravating factor, which turns the offense into a felony”). ¶ 17 Mor e recently, in People ex rel. Glasgow v. Carlson , 2016 IL 120544, our supreme court reviewed section 11-501 and concluded that the factors in subsection (d) were s entencing factors used to determine the fe lony classification of an aggravated DUI offense. Carlson , 2016 IL 120544, ¶ 23. In Carlson , t he court was asked to determine whether a third conviction for DUI8 was a Class 4 felony under section 11 -501 (d)(1)(A) or a Class 2 felony under section 11

- 501 (d)(2)(B)

. Id. ¶ 16. In construing sub section (d) , the court found that the language of the statute was unambiguous and that “ the legislature meticulously prescribed unambiguous sentencing requirements and classifications for aggravated DUI.” Id. ¶ 23. Applying sta tutory construction principles, it determined that subsection (d)(2)(B) demonstrated an “unambiguous legislative intent to classify a third DUI conviction as a Class 2 felony ” for sentencing purposes

. Id. ¶ 24

. Nothing in the court’s opinion referenced prior convictions as an element of an aggravated DUI offense. ¶ 18 Following Van Schoyck and Carlson , the rules of statutory construction lead us to conclu de that defendant’s prior DUI convictions d id not constitute an element of the charged DUI offense. Reading the DUI statute as a whole, the unambiguous structure reveals the legislature’s intent that subsections (c) and (d) provide sentence enhancements for successive DUI convictions rather than additional elements of the offense. In particular, t he plain language of subsection (d) indicate s an express legislative intent to apply prior DUI violations as enhancing factors to increase a sentence from one felony classification to a higher felony classification. See Peo ple v. Harris , 2015 IL App (4th) 140696, ¶ 41 ( stating that p rior DUI convictions do not constitute an element of aggravated DUI charge); People v. Halerewicz , 2013 IL App (4 th ) 120388, ¶ 35 (construing section 11 -501 and concluding that prior violations may be used to elevate an offense to a felony for sentencing purposes); People v. Lush , 372 Ill. App. 3d 629, 634 (2007) ( noting that prior DUI convictions are sentencing enhancements and not an element of aggravated DUI ) ; People v. Robinson , 368 Ill. App. 3d 963, 977 (2006) (concluding that prior DUI convictions were erroneously admitted at trial and improperly persuaded the trier of fact)

. Construing su bsection s (c) and (d) as sentencing parameters is also consistent with the requirements o f section 111

- 3(c) of the Code of Criminal9 Procedure of 1963

. 725 ILCS 5/111

- 3(c) (West 2018) ( providing that when the State seeks an enhanced sentence because of a prior conviction , “ the fact of such prior conviction and the State's intention to seek an e nhanced sentence are not elements of the offense and may not be disclosed to the jury ”)

. ¶ 19 Here, defendant was charged with aggravated DUI in that he violated sect ion 11 -501(a) of the Illinois Vehicle Code for the third time

. Pursuant to s ubsection (a) (2) , the State was required to prove to the jury that : (1) defendant was driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle ; and (2) he was under the influence of alcohol while doing so. 6 25 ILCS 5/11

- 501(a)(2) (West 2016). Defendant’s two previous DUI convictions were not elements of the offense ; t hey were aggravating factors that enh anced his sentence for the offense. D efendant’s third violation of 11

- 501(a) raised the offense to aggravat ed DUI and elevated the sentencing classification from a misdemeanor to a Class 2 felony. Id. § 11- 501(d)(1)(A), (2)(B) (West 2016). Since p rior DUI violations are not an element of aggravated DUI , the State was not required to prove d efendant’s prior DUI convictions to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. ¶ 20 Defendant argues that we must follow People v. Zimmerman , 239 Ill. 2d 491 (2010)

. In Zimmerman , the supreme court held that a prior adjudication of delinquency was an element of the offense of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon. Zimmerman , 239 Ill. 2d at 500. After examining the language of section 24

- 1.6 of the Criminal Code of 1961 (Code) ( 720 ILCS 5 /24

- 1.6 (West 2006)), the court found that the legislature intended a previous adjudication to be an element of the offense of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon that the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Id

. ¶ 21 Although Zimmerman is compelling, it differs from this case in one crucial aspect : the statutory structure of the aggravat ing offense. Under th e Code , aggravated unlawful use of a10 weapon , codified in section 24

- 1.6 (720 ILCS 5/24

- 1.6 (West 20 18 )), is an o ffense dis tinct and apart from unlawful use of a weapon, found in section 24 -1 (720 ILCS 5/24

- 1 (West 20 18)). Thus, b ased on th e Code’s statutory scheme, the defendant in Zimmerman was charged with an entirely separate crime from unlawful use of weapon

. Here, the legislature wrote the DUI statute differently. Section 11- 501 of the Illinois Vehicle Code defines the offense of driving while under the influence of alcohol to include factors that may result in an aggravated charge . See 625 ILCS 5/11-501 (a), ( d) (West 2016). However, there is only one statutory offense of driving while under the influence . Subsection (d) simply elevates the misdemeanor offense to a Class 2 felony if convicted of DUI for the third time. ¶ 22 In this case, the State was required to prove that defendant drove a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. The State was not required to demonstrate , as an element of the offense, that defendant had two prior DUI convictions. The evidence presented to the jury was therefore sufficient t o prove defendant ’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. ¶ 23 III. CONCLUSION ¶ 24 The ju dgment of the circuit court of Henry County is affirmed. ¶ 25 Affirmed

.