THIRD DIVISION February 13, 2008

No. 1-06- 0868 THE PEOPLE OFTHE STATE OFILLINO IS, ) A ppe al f rom ) the C i

rcui t Court Plai ntif f-A ppel le e, ) o f Co o k C o un t y. ) v. ) No. 05 CR 1363101 ) WL ODZ IMIER

Z CIE CHA

NOW SKI, ) Ho no r ab le ) Thomas

Fecarott a, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) Judge Presidin g.

JU STI CETH EIS de l i

v er ed th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Fol l owi ng a b en ch tri al , de f en da nt, W l odz i

m i erz Ci ec ha now sk i , wa s f oun d gu i l ty of agg ra vat ed d riving while und er t he influence o f alcoho l (DU I) base d o n dr iving under t he influ en ce du r ing a p er io d in wh ich his d r iving pr ivileg es ha d b ee n su sp en de d fo rr efu sing t o su bmit to a sobriety test after a prior arr est for suspect ed DUI (62 5 ILCS 5/11- 501(c-1 )(1) ( West 20 04 )). De f

en da n t wa s s ub se qu en tl y se n ten ce d to 1 0 day

s of i m pri son men t i n th e C ook C oun

ty Departmen

t o f Corrections a

nd 30 m onths of probation, an

d was ordered to pay

a tot al of $2,950 i n f i ne s a nd cos ts. On a

ppe al, de f en da nt c onte nds th at: ( 1) h e c oul d n ot ha ve be en con vi cte d of aggravated DUI as a m

atter of law becaus e the suspensi on for the prior DUI arrest was resci nded, whi ch rende red that suspensi

on void ab initio ; a

nd (2) the State f ai l ed to prov e h i m gui l ty of1-06-0868

1 De f en da nt wasalso g i

ve n tr af f i c c i tati ons f or: d ri vi ng wh i l e h i s l i cens e w assu sp en

de d or revoked (625 ILCS 5/6-303 (West 2004)); l eavi ng the scen

e of an a cci dent wi

th veh ic le dam age (625 ILCS 5 /11-402 (West 2004) ); drivi ng to o fast for co ndi

tions (625 ILCS 5 /11-601 (a) (West 2004)); and i

ll egal la ne usage (625 ILC S 5/11-709(a) (West 2004)). Ho wever, the record does not i ndi cate w ha t bec am e of thes e ci tations. 2 aggra va ted DUI b ey

ond a reas onab l e doubt. For the f oll owi ng r eas ons, we af

f i rm . Defe ndan t was charged wi

th aggravated DUI fol

lowi ng a May 9, 2005, acciden

t t hat
occur red in the 4800 block o f Nagle Aven ue in Harwo od Heights, Illi

nois. 1 At that t im

e, de f en da n t’s dri v i n g p ri v i l eg es weresu sp en

de d a s a re su l t of h i s f ai l ur e to s ub m i t to s ob riety

tests duri ng a prev i ous DUI arres

t on Mar ch 3, 2005 . Ho weve r, on J une 2 0, 200 5, t he co ur t gr ant ed a pet itio n fil ed by de fendant t o r esc ind t he
sus pens ion r esu lting fro m the M ar ch 3 a rr est . S pec ifi cally, t he co ur t fou nd t hat t he ar re st ing of f i cer had f ai l ed to gi v e def en da n t th e p rop er

wa rn i n gsb ef orede f en da n t re f us ed to s ub m i t to sobr i ety testi ng. Su bse qu en t ly, d efe nd an t filed a mo t io n t o dis miss t he ag gr av at ed DU I ind ict men t wh ich is the subject of the present case. In that mot ion, he cl aim ed that the rescission of his fi rst suspen si on due to t he off

ic er’s f ai lure to properly warn hi m ren dered that suspensi

on void ab initio . Therefore, he m

ai ntain ed, he could n

ot be ch arged with a

ggravated DUI for driv

in g under the i nf l uen ce wh i l e hi s dri vi ng pri vi l eges were sus pen ded. Th e court deni

ed thi s m otion
. The f oll owing e vi dence was

then adduced at def

endan t’s trial . Carlos Moy

a testif ie d that shortly bef ore 5 p.m. on the date in que stion, he was driv in g on Nagl e Avenue toward Foster Avenue when he obs er ved d efenda nt dr iving very fast . D efenda nt t hen st ru ck a silver ca r a nd kept going. Moya

slowed to see if the dri

ver of the si

lv er car was al

righ t, and after observi

ng that1-06-0868

3

he wa s, M oya fo llowed defend ant in or der t o g et his li cens e plat e number . As M oya w as d oing so, he observed def

endan t str ike two more vehicl es whi

le traveli ng at a speed of 40 to 45 mi le s per h our. One of thes e veh

ic le s was a wh

ite Cadi ll ac driv en b y of f-duty Chi cago poli ce off

ic er Ra ymo nd Co win
. Offic er Co win als o t es t ified t ha t he o bse r ve d d efe nd an t dr iving “e xt r eme ly fas t ” a nd er r at ica lly. S pe cific ally, Offic er Co win ex pla ine d t ha t de fen da nt wa s t r av eling no r t h in the sou thb oun d l an e a nd we av i ng be twe en the l an esof traf f i c. As def

en da nt waswe av

i ng f rom the s outhb ound l

ane i nto the f ar ri ght n orthboun d l ane, h e “ sideswi

ped” Of f i cer C owi n’ s Ca dil l ac. Defend ant t hen dr ove in front of O ffi cer Co win and r ear -e nded a vehicle t hat was st op ped at t he traf f i c l i ght. Tha t vehicle wa s dr iven by Jeffrey Mat t ison, who t est ifi ed t hat he first obs er ved d efenda nt in hi s rearview m

irror as defendant “sideswiped” Off icer Cowin’ s whi

te Cadill ac. Matt ison also obse rve d def endan t “we av e i n a nd out al l over th e road” be f ore en teri ng Mattis on’ s lane an

d rear
ending his c ar . Ma t t ison e xplained t hat t he impact of d efenda nt re ar -e nding his ca r se nt it “flyi ng th rough th e i n ter se cti on .” Of f i cer C owi n ob se rved th at def en da n t’s b ra ke l i gh ts d i d n ot il l um i n ate befo re defend ant st ru ck M at t ison’s car . I n add itio n, d efenda nt did no t st op aft er st riking Ma t t iso n’s ca ro nc e b ut , r at he r , pr o ce ed ed t o st r ike it t wo o rt hr ee mo r e t imes
. Offic er Co win parke d hi s vehi cle b ehi

nd d ef endan t’s a nd g ot out t o in

ve sti gate. Acco rd ing t o M oya, who had s t op ped at t he light next t o M at t ison in t he r ight nort hbound lane, defendant beg an drivi ng back and for th bet ween Mat tison’s and Officer Cowin’s cars, striki

ng each veh ic le twice m ore. Mo ya

becam e worried that defen

dant was tryi

ng to fl ee1-06-0868

4

the s cen e an d tha t def endan t woul d turn r

i ght a nd s trik e hi s ca r. When Officer Co win loo ked into defend ant ’s ca r, defend ant st ill had t he ca r in dr ive and was push in g the gas pedal

to the fl oor . Off ic er Cowin

al so observed that defen

dant’s n ose was bl oody and that he sm

el le d strongly

of alcohol. Def

endan t was als o continuousl

y m utt erin g,

“ wh at I do, wh at I do. ” O f f i cer C owi n re ach ed th rough th e wi n dow of de f en da n t’s ca r to tr y to pu t i t i n to pa rk b ec au se de f en da n t’s ca r w as sti l l pu sh i n g M attison ’s

ca r f ar th er an d f ar th er i n to the in tersection. However, defen dant began

struggli ng wi th Off ic er Cowin , even a

fter Of fi cer Cowi n i den tif i ed h i m sel f as a pol i ce of f i cer. At t his p o int , Ma t t iso n e xit ed his v eh icle t o he lp O ffice rCo win
. While Offic er Co win st ru ggled wit h defend ant , Ma t t ison w as a ble to re ach int o d efenda nt ’s ca r a nd t ur n off t he i gni tion . In d oin g so, Ma ttis on al so noticed th

at def endan t sm el l ed s trongl

y of a l cohol . In addi tion , Matti son n

otice d tha t def endan t’s n ose wa s b l oody a

nd th e ca r’sai r ba g ha d dep l oye d. Off ic er Cowin

then rem oved defe ndan t from h is car and attempted to get defen dant down onto the ground. Defen

dant contin

ued to r esi st, still

mutterin g, “what I do, what I do .” Off ic er Cowin added that defen

dant appeared i

ncoheren t. Offi cer Cowin

testifi ed that he nev

er struck defen dant, and Mattison an

d Moya al

so test if ie d that t hey

never saw Of

fi cer Cowin

strike def endan t. Offic er Co win ha s be en a p o lice o ffice rfo r27 yea r s, ha s o bse r ve d t ho us an ds o f pe o ple
un de r th e i nf l ue nc e of al coh ol , an d haswri tten approx i mate l y 30 DUI c i

tati ons . Ba se d on de fen da nt ’s dr iving , his s t r o ng sme ll o f alc o ho l, an d h is d eme an o rin g en er al, Offic er Co win bel ie ved that defe

ndan t was under the i

nf lue nce of a lc ohol an d that defenda

nt’s dri vi ng ha d been1-06-0868

5

impaired by the a mou nt of a lcoho l that he had co nsumed . Ma t t ison a lso be lieved t hat defend ant was unde r t he influence o f alcoho l and t hat defend ant was at t empt ing t o flee t he sc ene a fte r t he
acc i den t. Shortly thereafter, Harwood Heights poli ce arriv ed at the scene. Of

fi cer Steve Bi agi ask ed d efenda nt if he had bee n involved in an a ccide nt . D efenda nt re plied t hat he had and expl ai ned that he h

it a ve hicl e that sto pped suddenl y i n f ront o f h im . Off ic er Bi agi noticed that def endan t em i tted a strong sm

el l of a l cohol
. Def endan t was then

trans ported to the h

ospi tal . Of f i cer B i agi spoke wi th de f endan t there approx i mate l y 30 m i nu tesl ater. A

t tha t ti me, O f f i cer Bi ag i sti l l sm el l ed a s trong odor

of al coh ol on d efenda nt ’s br eat h. D efenda nt was also walking a ro und a nd sw aying fro m side t o s ide as he di d. In addi tion , def endan t was s l urri ng h i s sp eech, a

nd h i s ey es a ppea red gl ass y and bl oodshot. Of f i cer Bi ag i adde d that d

uri ng hi s s i x- yea r ca ree r as a p ol i ceof

f i cer, he h asobs erv ed hu nd red s of people un der the in fl uence of al cohol. Based on h

is observati ons of def

endan t, he bel ie ved that def endan t was u nde r the i nf l uen ce of alcohol
. Off ic er Bi agi asked def

endan t if he h ad been in jured, an d defen dant in dic ated that he had not. Offi cer Bi agi al so asked def

endan t if he h ad been drin kin g, which def

endan t denie d. Off

ic er Bia gi t he n a sk ed de fen da nt if he wo uld t ak e s o br iet y t es t s, an d d efe nd an t r es po nd ed t ha t he co uld not beca use he co uld no t get ano t her DUI . O ffi cer Biagi t hen ad vised d efenda nt t hat he wo uld be ch arge d w i th DUI a n d w rote out def en da n t’s tra f f i c c i tati on s. In total , O f f i cer B i ag i wa s wi th defen dant at the hospital

for about an hour, and duri ng that tim

e, defen dant contin

ued to appear to be un der the i nf l uen ce of al cohol
.1-06-0868

2 Defend ant ’s dr iving abst ra ct is not co nt ained in t he r eco rd on a ppe al. Be cau se t he appe l l an t be ars the bu rde n to pres en

t a suf f i ci en tl y com pleterec ord to th

e a ppe l l atecou

rt f or revi ew, we

wil l construe this i

nadequacy

of the rec ord agai

nst def endan t. See, e.g. , Fo ut ch v. O’Br yant , 9 9 I ll. 2d 3 89, 392 , 4 59 N .E .2 d 95 8, 959 (1 984 ). No t wit hst anding t he missing dr iving ab stra ct, def en da nt’ s p res en

ten cei nv es ti ga ti on r ep ort disc l ose s th

at he w asarres ted

f or DU I on March 3, 2005 an

d that a stat uto ry s

umm ary s uspens ion c omm

enced 46 day

s l ater on April

18, 2005 p er se cti on 11- 501.1( g) of the Il l i noi s Ve hi cle Code . 625 IL CS 5/1 1-501 .1(g) (W est 200 4). 6 Afte r d efenda nt signed a r efusa l of medical t re at ment, Officer B iagi t ra nspo rt ed him t o t he police station. Even a

fter def endan t had been

“b ooked” and place d in

the lockup, whi

ch was
n ea rl y two h our s af ter th e acc i den

t, he c on ti n ue d to smel

l str on gl y of al coh ol an d c on ti n ue d to appe ar i ntoxi cated to Of

f i cer B i agi
. The par t ies subs equ ent ly stipulat ed t o t he ad mission o f a cer t ifi ed c op y of a d riving ab str ac t of de f en da n t. 2 The y also st ipulat ed t o a June 14, 200 5, co ur t or der re scinding t he
sum mary sus pen sion of

def endan t’s dr i vi ng pri vi l eges resu l tin g f rom h i s Ma rch 2005 DUI arre st. The or der indicat ed t hat t he r esc ission w as w ar ra nt ed be cau se t he o ffi cer failed t o g ive defend ant the appropriate warni

ngs pri or t o his refusa l to subm it to sobriety testi

ng. The partie s f

urther agreed that the order was adm itted solel y f or t he purpose of establ

is hi ng the DUI as an aggra va ted DUI a nd n ot as a de f

en se to dri

vi ng w hi l e def endan t’s dr i vi ng pri vi l eges were sus pen ded. At the concl

usi on of the evi

dence, the trial

court found def

endan t guil ty of aggrav

ated DU I . T he co ur t no t ed t ha t alt ho ug h no so br iet y t es t s w er e a dmin ist er ed t o de fen da nt , his in to xi cation was “

obvious” based on the cum ula tive testi mony of the wi tnesses, wh

o all testifi ed that defenda

nt was dri vi ng erratical

ly and sm el le d strongly

of al cohol. The court also noted that1-06-0868

7

defen dant struck mul

tiple veh ic le s and conti

nued to strike Mattison’s

veh ic le without even knowin g what he was

doing. After fi

ndi ng def endan t guil ty, the trial

court sentence d hi

m to 10 da y s of i m prison men t i n th e C ook C oun

ty De pa rtm en t of Corr ec ti ons an d 30 month s of proba tion , and ordere d hi

m to pay a total of $ 2,950 i

n f i ne s an d costs. Def endan t fi l ed a p osttria

l motion conten di ng, inter al

ia , that his aggrav

ated DUI convi ction m ust be vaca

ted because the sus

pensi on in force at the tim

e of hi s off ense was l ater resc i nde d. The

tria l court den

i ed th at m otion , and def

endan t fi l ed th e pres en

t appea l
. Defendan t first contends t hat he could not have been f ound guilty

of aggravated D UI as a matt er of law beca use his susp ensio n for t he Ma rc h 200 5 DU I w as r esc inded. He c laims that t he resci ssion rendered that suspens ion v oid ab initio . Because thi s i ssue presen ts a question of l

aw and i nvolv es stat uto ry i

nterpr etat ion, our r evi ew is de novo
. Pe o ple v. Ka r mat zis , 373 Ill . App. 3d 714 , 718, 87 1 N.E.2d

118, 12 1 (200 7). Se ct io n 1 1- 50 1 o f t he I llino is V eh icle Co de pr o hibit s ind ividua ls fr o m dr iving an y veh icle wi thi n the state of

Il l i noi s wh i l e un der the i nf l uen ce of alcohol . 625 IL CS 5/1 1-501 (We st 2004 );
se e al so People v . Schaef

er , 154 Il l . 2d 250 , 254, 60 9 N.E.2d 329, 33 1 (199 3). Vi

ola tors are sub j ect to both cri

m i na l pen al tie s an d ci vi l san cti ons. Schaef

er , 154 Ill . 2d at 254-55, 609 N.E.2d at 331 . The crimi

nal penalti es range, depending on various facto rs, from punis hm ent as a Class A mi sdem eanor, which i s punishab le by im prisonm ent for up to o ne y

ear (730 ILCS 5/5-8-3(a)(1) (Wes t 200 4) ), t o a Class 2 Felo ny, which is pu nishable by thr ee t o s even yea rs’ impriso nment (730 ILCS 5 /5-8-1 (a)(5 ) (West 200 4)), plus v arious fi nes and costs (625 ILCS 5/501 ( West 2004) ).1-06-0868

8

Si gni f i can tly , DUI is a stric

t li ab i l i ty of f en se, re qui

ri ng n o in tent. Pe opl

e v . Z i l tz , 98 Ill . 2d 38, 42, 455 N.E. 2d 70, 72 (1983). T he suprem e court has explai

ned that strict lia

bi li ty f or DUI
com ports wi th d ueproc es s b ec au se

the State has a rati ona l basis f or cu rb i ng the i nc i de nc e of drun k dri vi ng. Zi l tz , 98 Ill. 2d at 43, 455 N.E .2d at 72. Because t he purpose behin d the o ff ense of aggravated DUI rem

ai ns the sa me , aggravated DUI is a

ls o a strict liabi

li ty off ense. See Pe o ple v. A ve ry , 277 Ill . App. 3d 824, 830, 661 N.E. 2d 361, 365 (1995) (holdi ng that aggravated DUI pr ed ica t ed up o n be ing invo lve d in a mo t o rve hic le a cc ide nt in w hic h a no t he rsu ffer ed gr ea t bo dily in jury was a strict l

ia bi li ty off ense). Dri

vi ng on a sus

pended or revoked li

cense i s al so a strict l i ab i l i ty of f en se. People v . Van

Cura , 49 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 15 7, 159, 3 64 N.E.2 d 564, 5 65-66(1977 ). Thu s, “[ t ]he defend ant ’s int ent , k now ledge , mo ra l tu rp itu de o r mo t ive is im mate rial,” and “[ t ]he only inte nt ion nec essa ry t o r ende r [ him] li able t o a [c riminal] pena lty for violat ion o f the automobil e l aw i s the doin

g of the act prohib ited.” People v . Str ode , 13 Ill . App. 3d 697, 698, 300 N .E.2d 323 , 325 (1 973). The ci vi l san cti on i s a statutory s

um mary sus pen sion of

the def endan t’s dr i vi ng pri vi l eges . 625 ILCS 5/5 01. 1 (Wes t 2 004 ); Pe opl e v . O rth , 124 Ill . 2d 326, 337, 530 N.E .2d 210, 215 (1 988 ). The imposit ion o f the st at ut or y summary susp ensio n is an ad mini st ra t ive funct ion o f the Secre tary of State , whi ch

l i censes and regu l ates the ac tiv

i ty of dri vi ng. Schaef

er , 154 Ill . 2d at 256 , 6 09 N .E .2 d at 331 . I n esse nce, t he su spe nsion is impo sed beca use a dr iver has violat ed t he stan dards of c onduc

t and the c ondi tions govern

i ng th e dri ver’sl i cense. People v . Dvorak , 27 6 I ll. Ap p. 3d 54 4, 55 1, 65 8 N . E . 2d 86 9, 87 6 ( 19 95 )
. Sp ec ifica lly, t he Se cr et ar y o f St at e w ill
sum ma ril y s uspend the dri

vi ng pri vi le ges of f irst-tim e off enders wh

o fai l s obriety tests for three1-06-0868

9

mont hs, a nd fo r r epe at offend er s who fail sobr iety t est s, t he Se cr et ar y of St at e will susp end dri vi ng pri vi l eg esf or one y ea r. 6 25 I LC S 5/6-2 08. 1 (W es t 200 4). Fu

rther, se cti

on 1 1-5 01. 1 of t he V ehic le Co de pr o vide s t hat “[ a] ny pe rs o n wh o dr ives o r is in ac t ua l phys ica l co nt ro l o f a
m otor v eh i cl e u pon th e pub l i c h

i gh wa y s of th i s S tate sh al l b e deemed

to h av e g i v en con se n t” to sob ri ety tes ti ng . 62 5 IL CS 5/1 1-5 01. 1(a ) (W es t 200 4); se e al so Schaef er , 154 Ill . 2d at 255, 609 N. E.2 d a t 33 1. A cc ordi n gl y , i f an i n di v i du al de tai n ed f or sus pe cte d D UIre f

us es to s ub m i t to sobr i ety testi ng, th e statutory

sum mary sus pen sions a

re l onger: one

year f or fi rst-ti me of f enders
and thre e y

ears f or repea t off enders . 625 IL CS 5/6 -208.1 (We st 2004 ). Significant ly, a license t o d rive, onc e issue d, is a pr op er t y inter est which may not be
sus pen ded or revoke d wi

thout due process

of l aw. Pe opl

e v . Es pos i to , 121 Ill . 2d 491, 504, 521 N.E .2d 8 73, 8 79 (1 988) . Ho wever, in contra st t o t he crime of DUI, which im pact s a defendant’s pers onal l i berty, d ue proce ss d

oes n ot requi re an evi den tia ry he ari ng pri or to the statutory
sum mary sus pen sion taki

ng e f f ect. Pe opl

e v . Es pos i to , 121 Ill . 2d 491, 504, 521 N.E .2d 873, 879 (1 98 8) . Rath

er , the V eh

i cl e C ode af f ord s a dri v er suf f i ci en t du e p roc es s b

y al l owi n g a dri v er to obtain a li mi ted civ il heari ng to challen

ge a summ

ary suspensi

on. 625 I LCS 5/2-118 .1(b) (West 200 4); Espos i

to , 1 21 I ll. 2d a t 507 , 5 21 N .E .2 d at 880 . Ac co rd ing t o t he Ve hicle Co de, t he dr ive rmay f

ile a wr it t en r eq ue st fo ra ju di cia l he ar ing in t he cir cu it co ur t o f ve nu e w it hin90 da ys of recei vi ng notice of the suspen

si on. 625 ILCS 5/2-118.1(b) (West 2004). The court mus t t hen hol d a h eari ng w i thi n 30 day s of the re cei pt of the requ

est. 625 ILCS 5/2-11 8.1(b ) (We st 2004 ). However, the statut ory sum ma ry s uspens ion does n

ot take eff

ect until 46 day s af

ter t he dri ver has
rece i ve d notice thereof

. 625 IL CS 5/1 1-501 .1(g) (W est 200 4).1-06-0868

10

Accordin gly , a driver may

stop an im

proper suspensi

on from ever takin

g eff ect by fi li ng a petition for rescission within two weeks of hi s DUI arrest . See 625 I LCS 5/2-118 .1(b) (West 200 4) . T his will

allow t he co ur t t he maximum 30 da ys in which to ru le on t he pe t itio n pr ior t o t he effe ct ive da t e o f t he su sp en sio n. Se e 6 25 I LC S 5 /2
- 11 8. 1( b) ( We st 20 04 )
. Ho we ve r , t he Ve hic le Co de sp ec ifica lly pr o vid es t ha t an y “[ sc he du led ] jud icia l he ar ing , [ filed ] r eq ue st , o rpr o ce ss sha ll
no t st ay o rde lay t he st at ut o ry su mmar y su sp en sio n. ” 6 25 I LC S 5 /2
- 11 8. 1( b) ( We st 20 04 )
. T his
mea ns t hat unle ss t he c o ur t ent er s a n o rd er re sc inding t he s us pe nsio n wit hin 4 5 d ays o f a defend ant ’s DU I a rr est , t he su spe nsion w ill t ake effect , r ega rd less o f whet her a pe t itio n t o r esc ind is pendi ng. As a resul t, if the dri

ver wai ts to o long to file

hi s petiti on to resci

nd, even if that pe ti ti on i s f i l ed wi thi n th e re qui red 90 d ay s of the da te of the dri ve r’ s D UI a rre st, th e suspe ns i on wi l l sti l l tak e e f f ec t on th e f orty -s i xth day fol lowi ng the dri ver’s a rrest. See 625 ILCS 5/2- 118 .1( b)(Wes t 200 4). Th

us , wh ether a dri ve r wi l l su f f er th e e f f ec ts of an i m prop er s uspe ns i on dep ends larg ely on t he dr iver’s diligence in r equ est ing a hea ring a fte r r ece iving not ice o f the
sus pen sion. Espos i

to , 121 Il l . 2d at 50 7, 521 N .E.2d at 88 0. It is al so im

port ant to emphasi

ze that crim

in al DUI charges are se

parate from the rem

edi al ci vi l s ancti on of the suspen

si on. The suspensi on is

not design

ed to punish , but rather, t o pro tect ot her s who t ra vel on t he pu blic highways o f Illinois by tempo ra rily suspe nding an o ffending dri ver’s dri vi ng pri vi l eges . People v . Lavariega , 175 Ill . 2d 153, 157, 676 N.E .2d 643, 645 (19 97) ; s eealso Schaef

er , 15 4 Ill. 2d at 257 -58 , 60 9 N. E. 2d at 332 ; Koss v. Sl ater , 116 Ill . 2d 389 , 3 95, 507 N. E. 2d 8 26, 829 (1 987 ). To t hat end, if a driver re que st s a he ar ing o n t he susp ension, tha t he aring will be a civi l pro ceed ing. 62 5 ILC S 5/ 2-1 18. 1(b) (West 200 4); Or th ,1-06-0868

11

124 Ill . 2d at 3 37, 530

N.E .2d at 2 15. Th

us , dou bl e j eop ard y doe s n ot ba r a c ri m i na l pros ecution f or DUI f oll owi ng th e i m posi tion of the statutory

sum mary sus pen sion. Lavari

ega , 175 Ill . 2d at 158, 676 N.E.2d at 645 . In addi tion, the di sm

is sal of a cri mi nal charge does not result i

n an automati c res ci ssi

on of the s uspe ns i on. Schaef

er , 154 Ill . 2d at 257-58, 609 N.E.2d at 332. In Pe o ple v. Fo cia , 287 Ill . App. 3d 767, 679 N.E.2d 121 ( 1997), the Third District
cons i dered

wh at ef f ect a re scissi

on has on a su spens i on tha

t has al ready taken ef f ect. In that case, the def endan t was cha rged w i th DUI on J an

uary 13, an d he r sus pen sion took ef

f ect on M arch

1. Fo cia , 2 87 I ll. App. 3d a t 768 , 6 79 N .E .2 d at 122 . S he su bseq uent ly f iled a pe t itio n t o r esc ind t he
sus pen sion. Fo cia , 28 7 Il

l . A pp. 3d a t 768 , 67 9 N .E.2 d a

t 122 . How ever, be f

ore th at p eti ti on wa s h ea rd, the de f en da nt rec ei ve d a ti cket f or dr i vi ng on a su sp en de d l i cens e p urs

ua nt to s ec ti on 6-303 of the Veh

i cle Code (625 IL CS 5/6 -303 (W

est 199 6)). Fo cia , 287 Ill . App. 3d at 768, 679 N. E. 2d a t 122 . T he co ur t ult imately re scinde d t he de fendant ’s su spe nsion, and t he de fendant conten ded that she coul

d, the ref ore, not b e gui

l ty of dri vi ng on a su spende d li cense. Fo cia , 287 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 768, 679N.E.2d a

t 122. On ap pea l, t he T hird D istr ict he ld t hat t he r esc ission o f the sus pens ion wa s no t t o be appl i ed retroactiv

el y . Fo cia , 287 Ill . App. 3d at 769, 679 N.E .2d at 123. T he m aj ority ex pla in ed that t he statuto ry s chem

e i n the Veh ic le Code im pli ed a legi sl ative

in tent t hat the suspensi on was to have f ull f orce an d ef f ect un til i t was proven

to be i nv al i d. Fo cia , 287 Ill . App. 3d at 769, 679 N. E.2 d a t 12 3. Th e m

aj ori ty also n oted th at to h ol d oth er wise wou l d b e to p er

m i t a def en da n t to del ay f i l i ng a peti tion to resci nd th e su spens i on. Fo cia , 287 Ill . App. 3d at 769, 679 N.E .2d at 123 . A sp ecially conc ur ring o pinion also po inted ou t t hat t o p ro ve t hat a de fendant was dr iving1-06-0868

12

on a s us pen de d l i cen se , the S tate

wa s on l y re qui re d to prove th

at th e def en da n t wa s d ri v i n g a t a t ime wh en h er licen se wa s s us pe nde d; t he S t at e w as no t re qu ire d t o dis pr o ve t he e xist enc e o f a
resc i ssi on. Fo cia , 287 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 770, 679N.E.2d a

t 124 (L y tton, J., sp eci

al l y conc urri ng)
. The dissent ing o pinion in Fo cia f ound th at “a resc i ssi on i s by def i ni tion retroacti ve ,” f ocusi ng on one m ean i ng of the w ord “re sci

nd,” na mel y , “ ‘ to voi d, repe al

* * * n ull i f y .’ [Citation.] ” Fo cia , 2 87 I ll. App. 3d a t 771 , 6 79 N .E .2 d at 124 (H old ridg e, J., dissent ing). The dis sent al so questioned h

ow the 45-day del

ay of the comm

encem ent of the suspen

si on eff ectuates the g oal of g ettin g dri vers l i kel y to comm i t DUI of f the road
. Fo cia , 287 Ill . App. 3d at 771, 679 N.E.2d a t 124 (Hol

dridge, J ., di sse

nti ng)
. We are n ot persuaded by

the rationale i

n the di ssen

t for two reasons. Fi

rst, t he 45-day time del ay is part o f a b

road er stat uto ry schem

e that a ff ord s a driver the requisi

te due p rocess bef ore t he dri

ver’s property i

nterest in hi s driv er’s l ic ense i s suspen ded. See Espos i

to , 121 Ill . 2d at 504 , 5 21 N .E .2 d at 879 . B y delaying the effect ive dat e o f the sus pens ion 4 5 da ys, t he l eg i sl atu re e f f ec ti ve l y prov i de d dr i ve rs wi th a n op portu ni ty to stop an

i m prop er s uspe ns i on f

rom ever t aking e ffect . S ee 6 25 I LCS 5/ 2- 118 .1 (b) (Wes t 200 4) . H ow ever , if the dr iver d elays fil ing a pe t itio n t o r esc ind suc h t hat t her e is no t eno ugh t ime for t he co ur t t o r esc ind it p rio r t o t he f orty -s i xth da y aft er t he de fen da nt ’s ar r es t , t he su sp en sio n w ill t ak e e ffec t o n t ha t da t e, ev en if t her e is a p et itio n t o r esc ind pend ing. S ee 6 25 I LCS 5/ 2- 118 .1 (b) (Wes t 200 4) . T hus, t he wi n dow of opp ortu n i ty af f ord ed a def en da n t to s eek r es ciss i on

of h i s s us pen si on pri or to i ts effect ive dat e is brief, and t he law is clea r t hat t he su spe nsion w ill t ake effect on d ay 46 a nd remai n i n ef fect unti l i t ends or is resci

nded. See 625 ILCS 5/2-118.1(b) (West 2004). Without1-06-0868

13

the 45 -day delay, it is uncl ear whet her t he Secre tar y of Stat e co uld summ arily suspend a d river’s driv in g priv il eges wi thout off endi ng due process. See Espos i to , 121 Ill . 2d at 506-07, 521 N.E.2d at 880 (fi ndi ng the 45-day

tim e del ay to be si gnifi cant becaus e the statut ory sch em e onl y requi res t ha t t r ial c o ur t co nd uc t a h ea r ing o n a pe t it io n t o r es cin d w it hin 3 0 d ays , as o pp o se d t o wit hin
som e sh orter tim e f ram e). Sec ond , t he su mmary susp ensio n affect s o nly a driver ’s license a s co nferr ed by t he Secretary of State. Thus, a rescis si on only im pacts a driv

er’s dri vi ng pri vi le ges. Indeed, where a suspen si on has b een resci nded, a dri

ver m ay stil l b e crim in al ly convi cted of DUI. See Peo ple v. Gerke , 12 3 Ill. 2d 85, 95, 525 N.E .2d 68, 73 ( 198 8); Pe o ple v. Sc hu ld , 175 Ill . App. 3d 272, 284, 529N.E .2d

800 , 80 7 (1 988 ). B ec au se thi s is a f un cti on of the Sec reta ry of State , th e d ef

i ni ti on of th e te rm “ re sc i ss i on ” is l

oca ted i n th e I l l i n oi s A dm i n i strati v e C ode , w

h i ch de f i n es re sc i ss i on

as “ to an nul or void a suspe

ns i on, rev ocati on, ca

nc el l ati on or den

i al .” 92 Il l . Ad m . Code §1 040.10 0(a), amende d at 25 I ll. Reg . 6 402 (e ff. Apr il 26, 2 001 ). This d efinition d esc ribes t he effect of t he
r es cis sio n o n a de fen da nt ’s dr iving pr ivileg es an d d r iving r ec o r d. Fo rinst an ce , t he r ec o r d in t his case di scloses that after defen dant’s sus pensi on resul ting f rom his March 3, 2005 DUI arrest was
resc i nde d, he wasi ssued an

am ended n otice of s uspe ns i on f or the suspe

ns i on ap pli cab l e h ere whi ch changed h

i s status f rom a repea t off ender to a f

i rst-ti me of f ender. Ho weve r, t his definitio n of r esc ission must be limi t ed t o t hat pur po se. Exa minatio n of t he pr oce du reset f orth i n th e V eh i cl e C ode makes cl ea r that u n l es s a su sp en si on i s res ci n de d p rior to i ts e f f ec ti ve da te, th e suspe ns i on i

s to ta keef f ec t an d re mai n i n e f f ec t f or th e p res cri

be d du rati on o run t il it is r es cin de d. Se e 6 25 I LC S 5 /2
- 11 8. 1( b) , 6- 20 8. 1( a) ( We st 20 04 )
. I nd ee d, in1-06-0868

3 De f en da nt a ttac he d a cop y of hi s p eti ti on to res ci

nd hi s f i rs t su sp en si

on to h i s p eti ti on f or re hear ing, w hich was fil

e- st amped May 4, 200 5. Bec aus e t his do cument was not included in the record on appe al , i t is not properl

y be f ore thi s court. Se e, e.g. , Peop l e v . Be ns on , 256 Ill . App. 3d 5 60, 563 , 62 7 N .E.2 d 12 07, 120 9 (1 994 ) (e xp l ai ni ng tha t i tem s a ttac he d to bri ef

s th at a re n ot included in the r eco rd on a ppe al canno t be us ed t o s upp lement t he r eco rd and c anno t be cons i dered

). Nev erthe l ess , ev en

i f we we re to cons i der i

t, it woul d not af f ect our con

cl usi on. It stil l s hows that defen

dant ma de the choi ce to wait until after hi s suspensi on to ok eff

ect to seek resci ssion and m

ade the choice to drive drunk wh il e hi s suspension was stil

l i n ef fect. The f

act that de f endan t ma y ha ve caus ed th e del

ay i n the h eari

ng ( see , e.g. , Pe opl

e v . Sm i th , 172 Ill . 2d 14 co nst ru ing a st at ut or y scheme, t he co ur t ’s go al is to asc er t ain and g ive effect t o t he inte nt of t he l egi slature. People v . Perry , 22 4 I l l . 2d

31 2, 3 23 , 86 4 N .E. 2d

19 6, 2 04 (2 00 7) . A s th

e m aj ori ty in Fo cia r ec o gn ize d, t o ap ply t he r es cis sio n r et r o ac t ive ly wo uld be t o ign o r e t he t ime fr ame estab l i shed b

y the l egi slature i

n s ection 2-1 18.1(b) of th e Veh i cle Code
. Fo cia , 287 Ill . App. 3d at 769, 67 9 N.E.2d

at 123. As t he major ity in Fo cia also e m ph as ize d, t o ap

pl y re sc i ss i on s retroacti

v el y wou l d b e to cond one a def endan t’s de l ay i n s eeki ng th e res ci ssi on. Fo cia , 287 Ill . App. 3d at 770, 679 N.E .2d at 12 4. T his r at io na le is pa r t icu lar ly sig nific an t he r e. De fen da nt ’s su sp en sio n t o o k e ffec t o n Ap r il 18, 2005. He was arrested for the present aggravated DUI on May 9, 2005. His sus

pensi on was not re scinde d unt il June 14 , 2 005 . B eca use t he circ uit co ur t must co nduc t a hea ring o n a def endan t’s pe titi on to resc i

nd a sus pen sion wi

thi n 30 day s (62 5 ILC S 5/2-1 18.1(b) (We st 2004 )), the earli est date o n wh

ic h def endan t could have fi

le d hi s petiti on to resci

nd the suspe

nsi on was May 14, 200 5, which was fiv e days after his arrest for agg ravat ed DUI . To accept defendant’s
argu men t an d to a pp l y a r es ciss i on

re troacti v el y wou l d b e to c on don

e def en da n t’s ch oi ce to i gn oreh i s s us pen si on , dr i v e d ru n k, a n d b e ch arge d w i

th ag gr av ate d D UIb ef

orede ci di n g to pet itio n for re scissio n of t he su spe nsion. 31-06-0868

289 , 2 95, 665 N. E. 2d 1 215 , 1 218 (1 996 )) or may have aba ndo ned his r ight t o ha ve t he hea ring cond ucted wi thi n 30 day s of the date of

the f i l i ng of his petiti on (s ee, e.g. , People v . Lagowski , 273 Ill. App . 3 d 10 12, 101 6, 653 N. E. 2d 1 , 4 (1 995 )) do es no t affect ou r c onc lusion. 15 Thus , be caus e the

Secre tary of State ha s the authority to enter s tatutory s

um mary susp ensions ( see 6 25 I LCS 5 /50 1.1 (West 200 4); Schaef er , 154 Ill . 2d at 256, 609 N. E.2d at 331) and be cau se e ven an impr op er st at ut or y summary susp ensio n will tak e effect unless a nd unt il the defen dant acts to ann

ul i t (see 625 ILCS 5/2-118.1(b) (West 2004)), we cannot say that an im proper suspensi

on is void ab initio
. Ra t he r , an impr o pe rst at ut o ry su mmar y su sp en sio n is
merel y voi dab l e. See , e.g. , I n r e M ar r iag e o f Mit ch ell , 181 Ill . 2d 169, 174, 692 N.E .2d 281, 284 ( 19 98 ) ( ex pla ining t ha t an o r de ris vo id w he r e it is e nt er ed wit ho ut au t ho r it y, b ut an o r de ris
v oi da b l e w h er e i t i s e rron eou s or i m pr oper); se e a

l so B l ack’ s L aw

Di cti on ar y 15 68 (7 th

ed. 1999)
. Because the stat uto ry sum mary suspension is v

oidable, and not void, and because ag gr av at ed DU I is a st r ict liabilit y o ffen se , t he fac t t ha t de fen da nt ’s su sp en sio n w as ult imat ely
re scinde d do es no t pr ovid e him with a d efense her e. Defend ant ’s su spe nsion w as in full forc e and eff ect on May 9, 2005, be cause he had n ot ye t succeeded i

n ha vi ng i t rescin ded. Therefore, def endan t coul d properl

y be conv i cted of aggra va ted DUI a s a m

atter of l aw. Defe ndan t next contends that the Stat e fai le d to prove hi

m gui lty of aggravated DUI be yo nd a r ea so na ble do ub t . Sp ec ifica lly, h e c laims t ha t he wa s no t int o xic at ed an d t ha t his e rr at ic drivi ng and apparent disorientation were due t o his h avi ng been i nj ured in the acci dents. Where a de fendant challenge s t he su ffi ciency o f the evidenc e t o s ust ain his co nvictio n, t he
re levant inquiry is whet her , a fte r view ing t he evide nce in t he light most favo ra ble to t he1-06-0868

16

pr os ecu t ion, any rat ional t rier of fac t co uld have fou nd t he es sent ial elements of t he cr ime beyond
a r ea son ab l e doub t. Pe o ple v. Ca mpb ell , 146 Il l . 2d 363 , 374, 58 6 N.E.2d 1261, 1 265-6 6 (199 2). The r ea son

ab l e i n f er en ce s to b e d

ra wn f rom th e ev i den ce

ar e th e r es ponsi b i l i ty of th e tr i er of f ac t; there f ore, a con vi cti on wi l l not be set as i de un

l ess the evi den ce is so i m proba bl e or un sati sf

actory that the re rem ai ns a rea sona bl e doubt of de f

endan t’s gu i l t. Ca mpb ell , 146 Ill . 2d at 374, 586 N.E.2d a t 1266.

“ Sec ti ons 11- 501 (a) (1) an

d (a )(2 ) of the Il l i noi s V eh i cl e C odeprov

i detha t a p ers on co mmi t s DU I w hen he d rives a ny vehicle within t his st at e while ‘t he alco hol co ncent ra t ion in t he person’s b lood or breath is 0.08 or more’ or when the person i s ‘un

der the in fl uence of al cohol.’ ” People v . Hirsch, 355 I ll . App. 3d 61 1, 616, 824 N.E .2d 321, 325 (200 5), qu ot in g 625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(1), (a)(2) (West 2004) . The DUI beco mes aggravated in s everal ci rcumstances, including, as c har ged her e, when a per so n co mmi t s it “d ur ing a pe rio d in which his o r he r d riving priv il eges are revoked or suspended, wh ere the revocation or suspens ion was f or [a previous DU I ] . ” 6 25 I LC S 5 /1 1- 50 1( c- 1) ( 1) ( We st 20 04 )
. As w e a lre ad y exp laine d, ag gr av at ed DU I is al so a strict li

abi li ty off ense. See Av

ery, 27 7 Ill. App. 3d at 830 , 66 1 N. E. 2d at 365 ; Van Cura , 49 Ill . App. 2d at 159, 364 N.E .2d at 565-66. Thus, to sustain a ch arge of aggravated DUI he re, the Stat e was not required to prove that defendan t had knowl edge that hi s lic ense was suspen ded at the ti me h e com

m i tted the D UI. The evidenc e ad duc ed a t defend ant ’s t rial est ablished t hat on t he da t e in que st ion, defen dant’s dri vi ng pri vi le ges were suspen

ded. Al though the order t o whic

h the parties

stipul ated at tr ia l i ndicated that t he sus

pensi on was ul tim ately resci nded on Jun

e 14, 2005, as we expl

ai ned1-06-0868

17

ab ove, the su spens i on wa s sti l l i n e f f ect wh en def endan t was d ri vi ng on May 9, 2005 . Further, although def

endan t refused to subm

it to chemi

cal testing, f our eyewi tnesses obs er ved d efenda nt and be lieved him to be und er t he influence o f alcoho l. Mo ya, Ma t t ison, and Of fic er Co win ea ch t es t ifie d t ha t t he y o bs er ve d d ef en da nt dr ivin g e xt r eme ly fa st an d e rr at ica lly,
sw er vin g i n a nd o ut o f la ne s a nd dr ivin g n o r t h int he so ut hbo un d l an es o f t r af fic
. Ad di t io na lly,
each of thes e thre e ey

ewi tnes ses obse rve d def endan t stri ki ng other v ehi cles a s he was dri vi ng. Ul tim atel y , def endan t rear-en ded M attis on’ s ca

r whi l e Ma

ttis on wa s stoppe d at a re d li ght. Howev er, i nstead of def endan t real izi ng w ha t he h ad don e, h e con tin ued to stri

ke M attis on’ s ca

r, push i ng i t fur ther i nto the i nters ection. Ma

ttis on an d Of f i cer C owi n h ad to work togethe

r to turn off de fendant ’s ca r a nd r emove him f ro m it. Whe n t hey did, t hey bot h obs er ved t hat defend ant sm el l ed s trongl

y of a l cohol . Def

endan t al so con tin uousl y m uttered, “ wh at I do, what I do,” i ndi cati ng th at he wastoo in

toxi cated to ev

en real ize wh at ha d ha ppen ed. Off icer Biagi, who observed defendant during the two ho urs after t he accident, also opi ne d that d ef

en da nt wasun de r th e i nf l ue nc e of al coh ol . Of f i cer Bi ag i tes ti f i ed tha t i n a ddi ti on t o s melli ng st ro ngly of alco hol, defend ant slurr ed his sp eec h, sw ayed fr om side t o s ide whe n he walke d, and ha d glas sy, blo od sho t eyes. Defend ant co nt inued t o a ppe ar into xicat ed e ven aft er he was taken to t he polic e l ockup, ro ughl y two hours after the acci dent, and ref

used m edi cal treat me nt. This evi dence is suf

fi ci ent to est abl

is h that defen

dant was dri

vi ng unde r the in fl uence o f alco ho l du ring a p er io d o f t ime in wh ich his dr iving p rivile ge s w er e s us pe nde d a s a re su lt o f a prev i ous DUI arres

t in whi ch he f ail ed to sub

m i t to sobri ety

testi ng. A l thou gh de f en da nt c l ai m s th at h i s erra ti c d ri vi ng , sl urred sp ee ch , an

d gl as sy , b l oods hot1-06-0868

18

eyes we re t he r esu lt o f being injured in the a ccide nt , d efenda nt admit t ed t o O ffi cer Biagi at t he hospi tal that he h

ad not been i

nj ured in the accident. Moreo ver, i t is the f unction of

the trial court, an d not thi s court, to wei

gh th e ev i den ce a nd to dra w the reas onab l e i

nf eren ces there f rom. Ca mpb ell , 14 6 I ll. 2 d a t 37 4, 58 6 N . E . 2d at 12 66 . Alt ho ug h t he t r ial c o ur t ’s de t er minat io ns in thi s reg ard ar

e not concl

usi ve , they are e nti tle d to great def

eren ce. People v . McCormi

ck , 33 9 I ll. Ap p. 3d 64 1, 647, 7 91 N.E.2 d 112, 1 16 (20 03). W e do not fi

nd th e tri al court’s conc l usi ons h ere to be so un

reas onab l e, i

m proba bl e or un sati sf

actory as to j ustif

y di sturb i ng th em . Ac cordi ngl y , we af f i rm def endan t’s c onv i cti on an d senten ce. Af f i rmed. QUINN , P.J., an

d CUN NINGH AM , J., con

cur.REPORTER OF DECISIONS - ILLI

NOIS APPEL LATE COURT

_________________________________________________________________ THE PEO PLEOF T HE STATE OF ILLI NOIS , Pl aintif f-Ap pel le e, v. WLODZIMIERZ CIECHANOWSK I, Def endan t-Appe ll ant.

________________________________________________________________ No. 1-06-0868 Appell ate Cour t of Il linois First Di str

ict, Third Division Filed: Febr

uary 13, 2008

_________________________________________________________________

JUST ICETHE IS de liv er ed the opinio n of t he co urt . Qu in n, P.J ., an d C un ni ng ha m, J ., con cur.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal f ro m the Cir cuit C our

t of C ook County Honor able T homas

Fecar otta, Judge Pr

esiding

_______________________________________________________________ __ For APPELLANT, Sherwin H. Zaban 1160 Lee Road Northbrook

, IL 60062 For APPELLEE, Richard A. Devine, State’s Attorney James E. Fitzgerald, Assistant State’s Attorney Mary P. Needham, Assistant State’s Attorney Ljubica D. Popovic, Assistant State’s Attorney 300 Richard J. Daley Center Chicago, IL 60602