ILLINOIS OFFICIAL REPORTS

Appellate Court

People v. Demsco, 2013 IL App (3d) 120391

Appellate Court

Caption

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.

DENNIS DEMSCO, Defendant-Appellant.

 District & No. Third District

Docket No. 3-12-0391

Rule 23 Order filed

Motion to publish

allowed

Opinion filed

May 7, 2013

May 24, 2013

May 24, 2013

Held

(Note: This syllabus

constitutes no part of

the opinion of the court

but has been prepared

by the Reporter of

Decisions for the

convenience of the

reader.)

The trial court’s refusal to sentence defendant to TASC probation was an

abuse of discretion, since defendant met all of the eligibilityrequirements

for TASC probation and the trial court found that defendant was an ideal

candidate for TASC, but still did not impose such a sentence; therefore,

the cause was remanded to allow such a sentence.

Decision Under 

Review

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Will County, No. 10-CF-1199; the Hon.

Richard C. Schoenstedt, Judge, presiding.

Judgment Reversed and remanded.
Counsel on

Appeal

Joel Murphy (argued), of Chuck Bretz & Associates, P.C., of Joliet, for

appellant.

James Glasgow, State’s Attorney, of Joliet (TerryA. Mertel and Dawn D.

Duffy (argued), both of State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s Office,

of counsel), for the People.

Panel JUSTICE LYTTON delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

Presiding Justice Wright and Justice O’Brien concurred in the judgment

and opinion.

OPINION

¶ 1 Defendant, Dennis Demsco, pleaded guilty to criminal damage to property (720 ILCS

5/21-1(1)(a) (West 2010)). The trial court conducted a sentencing hearing and imposed a

term of 24 months’ probation. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court abused its

discretion in failing to sentence him to TASC probation under the Alcoholism and Other

Drug Abuse and Dependency Act (Act) (20 ILCS 301/40-10 (West 2010)). We reverse and

remand for further proceedings.

¶ 2 On June 7, 2010, defendant, while impaired, drove his car into his girlfriend’s vehicle

and pushed it up against a garage. He then picked up a Red Flyer wagon and broke the

windows and side mirrors and dented the fenders of another car parked nearby. Defendant

was arrested and charged with two counts of criminal damage to property. See 720 ILCS

5/21-1(1)(a) (West 2010).

¶ 3 In September of 2011, defendant pleaded guilty to one count in the indictment and

petitioned for the election of probation with treatment under the Act, commonly referred to

as TASC (Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities) probation. At the sentencing

hearing, the trial court reviewed defendant’s criminal history and noted that he had no prior

felony arrests or convictions. The court determined that probation would be an appropriate

sentence. The trial court then considered two TASC reports filed in conjunction with

defendant’s election under the Act. The first report stated that the TASC drug evaluator had

conducted an assessment on November 16, 2011, and concluded that defendant was

“unservicable” for TASC probation because he had successfully completed treatment prior

to assessment for TASC services and had not used any drugs since he committed the offense.

A revised report, submitted on January 12, 2012, stated that a TASC supervisor had

reassessed defendant and determined that defendant was acceptable for the TASC program.

The second report indicated that defendant met the criteria for alcohol and cocaine

dependence and recommended office monitoring at a TASC facility because defendant had

already completed substance abuse treatment at the New Day Center.

-2-
¶ 4 After considering the TASC reports and other information, the trial court found that

defendant had a substance abuse issue dating back to 2010 and was under the influence of

alcohol and illicit drugs at the time he committed the crime. The court noted that the revised

TASC report stated that (1) defendant was TASC eligible, (2) defendant’s eligibility was

based on his likelihood for rehabilitation through substance abuse treatment, (3) there

“appeared” to be a nexus between his abuse and the crime, and (4) defendant met the

program’s criteria for alcohol and cocaine dependence. The court further noted that “TASC

probation should be imposed in circumstances where this Court believes that TASC

probation would most likely be needed, be successful and, quite frankly, this Court does take

into consideration not only [defendant’s] potential problems of abusing substances such as

illegal drugs and alcohol, alcohol is not illegal, of course, but it is a substance, but also takes

into account his other issues relating to his mental health.” The court then acknowledged that

TASC services had been reduced in recent years due to “budgetary restrictions and

limitations.”

¶ 5 In reaching its decision, the trial court found that defendant was a candidate for TASC,

that he was in need of TASC services, that he was likely to successfully complete the

services, and that he was doing “very, very well since the incident back in 2010.” It also

found that incarceration was not necessary and that defendant was a good candidate for

probation. The court then concluded that a sentence of probation was more appropriate than

TASC treatment and sentenced defendant to 24 months’ probation.

¶ 6 ANALYSIS

¶ 7 Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying him TASC probation under the Act

because the court found that there was a significant relationship between the offense and

defendant’s substance abuse and that defendant posed no serious threat to the public and was

likely to be rehabilitated through treatment.

¶ 8 A defendant who is charged with or convicted of a crime and suffers from alcoholism or

other drug addition may elect to submit to treatment by a designated TASC program. 20

ILCS 301/40-10(a)(West 2010). Upon election, the defendant must undergo an examination

by a designated program, which then reports to the trial court. 20 ILCS 301/40-10(b) (West

2010). “If the court, on the basis of the [TASC] report and other information, finds that such

an individual suffers from alcoholism or other drug addiction and is likely to be rehabilitated

through treatment, the individual shall be placed on probation and under the supervision of

a designated program ***.” 20 ILCS 301/40-10(b) (West 2010). A trial judge may deny

treatment under the Act if he or she finds that (1) no significant relationship exists between

the defendant’s addiction or alcoholism and the crime committed, or (2) the defendant’s

imprisonment is necessary for the protection of the public. 20 ILCS 301/40-10(b) (West

2010). The court must specify, on the record, the particular evidence, information or reasons

that form the basis of its opinion. 20 ILCS 301/40-10(b) (West 2010). A trial court’s

determination of a defendant’s eligibility for treatment and sentence under the Act will not

be reversed absent a showing that the court acted in an arbitrary manner or abused its

discretion. People v. Gernant, 242 Ill. App. 3d 833 (1993).

-3-
¶ 9 The policy of the Act is to place individuals suffering from alcoholism or other drug

addiction on probation and provide rehabilitative services so that those who abuse drugs may

be restored to good health and become productive members of the community. 20 ILCS

301/1-5 (West 2010); People v. Clark, 206 Ill. App. 3d 741 (1990); People v. Hamelin, 181

Ill. App. 3d 350 (1989). The discretion vested in the court should be exercised with a view

toward implementing, rather than frustrating, the strong legislative policy disclosed by the

enactments creating the drug addiction rehabilitation program. People v. Robinson, 12 Ill.

App. 3d 291 (1973). Although a trial court is allowed discretion in sentencing matters, it still

has an obligation to exercise that discretion responsibly and in a manner that reflects the

constitutional mandate that all penalties shall be determined according to the seriousness of

the offense, with the objective of restoring the defendant to useful citizenship. Clark, 206 Ill.

App. 3d at 745-46.

¶ 10 Here, the revised TASC report indicated that defendant was eligible to participate in the

treatment program. The report also noted that there was a nexus between defendant’s abuse

of alcohol and drugs and his criminal activity and that defendant was likely to be

rehabilitated through treatment. The trial court found that all the eligibility requirements had

been met. It reviewed the TASC reports and agreed that rehabilitation services would most

likely be needed based on defendant’s assessed alcohol and drug abuse. The court further

agreed that defendant was likely to successfully complete the services. In light of the trial

court’s findings, the language of the statute mandates TASC treatment unless the trial court

makes a specific determination that no significant relationship between defendant’s addiction

and the crime or imprisonment is required to protect the community. The trial court made no

such finding in this case. To the contrary, the court found that defendant was an ideal

candidate for TASC probation and treatment. Thus, the trial court abused its discretion by

denying defendant treatment under the Act.

¶ 11 CONCLUSION

¶ 12 The judgment of the circuit court of Will County is reversed and remanded to allow the

trial court to sentence defendant to a period of TASC probation.

¶ 13 Reversed and remanded.

-4-