Opinion ID: 543631
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Dangerous Drug Abuse Act

Text: 28 Of the three prior felony convictions introduced in evidence, Hope challenges only one on appeal, a 1975 conviction in the State of Illinois for burglary. The government introduced evidence in the form of a Certified Statement of Conviction in which the Clerk of the Cook County Circuit Court certified that on November 21, 1975 Hope withdrew his original plea of not guilty to the offense charged and entered a plea of guilty and that on that same date judgment was entered on the conviction and the defendant was sentenced ... to Illinois Department of Corrections for a term of not less than three (3) years, nor more than nine (9) years. Defendant sentenced to the Drug Abuse Program thru Gateway House. 29 Hope maintains for the first time on appeal that, contrary to the Clerk's Certified Statement of Conviction, the court proceeding on November 21, 1975 never culminated in a conviction under Illinois law. He bases his argument on two separate, yet related, theories, contending that the sole purpose of Illinois' Dangerous Drug Abuse Act was to provide rehabilitative treatment to drug addicts in lieu of prosecution, People v. Warren, 69 Ill.2d 620, 14 Ill.Dec. 879, 881, 373 N.E.2d 10, 12 (1977), and that the transcript of the hearing on November 21 actually evidences the state court's intention to offer Hope a rehabilitative treatment program as an alternative to prosecution. Hope submits the transcript of that hearing and the Memorandum of Orders entered by the state court in support of his contention, and renews his motion to supplement the record or alternatively to have this court take judicial notice of that proceeding. 1 30 The Illinois Dangerous Drug Abuse Act, Ill.Rev.Stat., ch. 91 1/2, Sec. 120.8 (1973), provided: 31 An addict charged with or convicted of a crime is eligible to elect treatment under the supervision of the Department instead of prosecution or probation, as the case may be, unless    (e) the addict is on probation or parole and the appropriate parole or probation authority does not consent to that election   . 2 32 (Emphasis added). Warren, 14 Ill.Dec. at 880, 373 N.E.2d at 11; People v. Phillips, 66 Ill.2d 412, 6 Ill.Dec. 215, 216, 362 N.E.2d 1037, 1038 (Ill.1977). While it is undisputed that one of the purposes of the Act was to create an alternative to criminal prosecution, Warren, 14 Ill.Dec. at 881, 373 N.E.2d at 12, the language of section 120.8 makes it clear that was not the only purpose. The provisions of the Dangerous Drug Abuse Act provided both an alternative to prosecution, in which case proceedings would be stayed subject to dismissal pending the satisfactory completion of treatment, see Phillips, 6 Ill.Dec. at 216, 362 N.E.2d at 1038; Warren, 14 Ill.Dec. at 880-81, 373 N.E.2d at 11-12, and a sentencing alternative once criminal proceedings had culminated in a conviction. See People v. Dill, 23 Ill.App.3d 503, 319 N.E.2d 240, 243 (1974); People v. Smith, 23 Ill.App.3d 387, 319 N.E.2d 238, 240 (1974). 33 To the extent Hope maintains that the proceeding which took place in the Cook County Circuit Court on November 21, 1975 did not culminate in a conviction under Illinois law, we again must disagree. 3 Illinois law defines conviction as: 34 a judgment of conviction or sentence entered upon a plea of guilty or upon a verdict or finding of guilty of an offense, rendered by a legally constituted jury or by a court of competent jurisdiction authorized to try the case without a jury. 35 Ill.Rev.Stat., ch. 38, para. 2-5 (1962); Ill.Rev.Stat., ch. 38, para. 1005-1-5 (1973). While Hope argues that the proceedings on November 21, 1975 did not culminate in a judgment of conviction or finding of guilty, he ignores the disjunctive language of the statute which states that  'conviction' means a judgment of conviction or sentence entered upon a plea of guilty.... As the Illinois Court of Appeals noted in People v. Pruitt, 45 Ill.App.3d 399, 4 Ill.Dec. 99, 359 N.E.2d 1051 (Ill.App.1977), The word 'or' in the statute must be accorded significance; whenever this disjunctive is used, the members of the sentence it connects are to be taken separately. Pruitt, 4 Ill.Dec. at 100, 359 N.E.2d at 1052 (quoting People v. Johnson, 34 Ill.App.3d 38, 339 N.E.2d 325, 327 (1975)). 36 It is clear from the Clerk's Certified Statement of Conviction that on November 21, 1975 Hope withdrew his plea of not guilty to the charge of burglary, and entered a plea of guilty; that the court sentenced him to the Drug Abuse Program through Gateway House in lieu of a three-to-nine year term of imprisonment, thus electing a rehabilitative rather than criminal sanction. 4