Traffic/DUI

Court properly considered relevant sentencing factors and did not abuse discretion in sentencing Defendant to 7 years. Evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s Class 3 and 4 felony convictions where his driving abstract shows that his license was under statutory summary suspension (SSS) at time of offenses of driving while license revoked on two separate occasions. Prior revocation of Defendant’s driving privileges did not render his subsequent SSS a nullity for purposes of enhanced driving while license suspended or revoked charges.(PUCINSKI and LAVIN, concurring.)

(Correcting case citation and link.) Defendant was convicted, after stipulated bench trial, of of one count aggravated DUI and one count aggravated DUI with BAC greater than 0.08. Stipulating as to what a witness would testify does not remove substance of a witness's testimony from evidence trial court may consider in stipulated bench trial. Stipulations to testimony a witness would give if called may properly form basis for finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt by trial court in course of bench trial. Consent to a chemical test is not coerced and is not rendered involuntary merely by officer's reading of warning to motorist that informs Defendant of consequences of refusal. Thus, consensual blood test here did not violate Defendant's 4th Amendment rights. Court noted Defendant's 4 prior DUIs, and considered his family ties and obligations. Court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant to 13 years imprisonment, as it was within range of 4 and 15 years for aggravated DUI for a 5th DUI conviction. (POPE and HARRIS, concurring.)

Defendant was convicted of aggravated DUI resulting in a death, aggravated failure to report accident resulting in death, and disorderly conduct. As Defendant made no attempt to report accident, his argument that he was physically unable to go to a police station to make a report, because he was being detained by police, fails. Evidence showed that Defendant knew of accident yet made no attempt to report his involvement, even after being arrested for obstruction of justice and confronted with knowledge of victim's death. (ZENOFF and SPENCE, concurring.)

Defendant was charged with two counts of DUI. Section 30 of State Police Act, which requires that police cars be equipped with video recording device to record traffic stops. Court abused its discretion in suppressing officer's testimony about field sobriety tests as a sanction for officer's failure to capture field sobriety tests on video. State did not commit a discovery violation, as State turned over the video, and as Section 30 of Act is directory, and does not provide remedy for noncompliance. (JORGENSEN and BIRKETT, concurring.)

(Court opinion corrected 5/29/15.) Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of reckless driving. Information showed on its face that it was filed beyond statute of limitations. Establishing that statutory exception tolled limitations period was element of State's case that it had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, but State failed to do so. Defendant was not required to file motion to dismiss, and he did not waive State's obligation to prove this element at trial by not filing motion to dismiss.(SPENCE, specially concurring; BURKE, dissenting.)

Defendant entered blind plea of guilty to driving while license revoked, and to obstructing identification. Court properly found that Defendant was not eligible for court supervision, as his revocation was related to a DUI charge. During plea agreement negotiations, it was established that Defendant had been convicted of driving while license revoked in connection with DUI charge, and thus Defendant was required to serve minimum 30 days in jail. Bond forfeiture for DUI is equivalent of conviction for DUI for purposes of Driver Licensing Law. (CARTER and WRIGHT, concurring.)