Opinion ID: 2483242
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Driver's License Statutory Summary Suspension

Text: We note defendant's additional contention regarding the State's statutory summary suspension of his driver's license. On the night of defendant's arrest, Brunnworth served defendant with notice of the statutory summary suspension of his driver's license based on defendant's failure to take a Breathalyzer test. See 625 ILCS 5/11-501.1 (West 2008). In November 2008, the State suspended defendant's driver's license. Shortly after the circuit court granted his motion to suppress evidence and quash arrest, defendant filed a petition for hearing, seeking rescission of the State's statutory summary suspension of his driver's license. See 625 ILCS 5/2-118.1 (West 2008). Pursuant to the granting of defendant's motion to suppress evidence and quash arrest, the circuit court entered an order rescinding the statutory summary suspension. On appeal, the State assigned error to the circuit court's rescission order. The appellate court noted that the circuit court based its rescission order solely on its order to suppress evidence and quash arrest, which the appellate court reversed. Accordingly, the appellate court vacated the rescission order. 395 Ill.App.3d at 201, 334 Ill.Dec. 764, 917 N.E.2d 590. Before this court, defendant contends in his appellant's brief that the appellate court erred in vacating the circuit court's order rescinding his statutory summary suspension of his driver's license. However, defendant failed to include this claim in his petition for leave to appeal. Rather, defendant's petition for leave to appeal focused exclusively on the lower courts' disposition of his motion to suppress evidence and quash arrest. Indeed, a careful review of defendant's petition for leave to appeal fails to disclose even a reference to the statutory summary suspension of his driver's license. Supreme Court Rule 315(c)(3) (210 Ill.2d R. 315(c)(3)) requires a petition for leave to appeal to contain a statement of the points relied upon in asking the Supreme Court to review the judgment of the Appellate Court. Issues that a party fails to raise in its petition for leave to appeal, even if raised in the party's appellant's brief, are not properly before this court and are forfeited. City of Naperville v. Watson, 175 Ill.2d 399, 405-06, 222 Ill.Dec. 421, 677 N.E.2d 955 (1997); People v. Clark, 119 Ill.2d 1, 7, 115 Ill.Dec. 613, 518 N.E.2d 138 (1987). We decline to override the forfeiture (see In re A.W.J., 197 Ill.2d 492, 499-500, 259 Ill.Dec. 392, 758 N.E.2d 800 (2001)), especially in light of our remand to the circuit court, where defendant may pursue any applicable remedy.