Traffic/DUI

Defendant convicted of one count of aggravated DUI and one count of driving while revoked (DWLR) for same incident where he hit another car while under the influence of marijuana and alcohol. Per statute, penalty for DWLR conviction is in addition to penalty for aggravated DUI conviction. Revocation is not an element of DUI offense, but was a factor that enhanced sentence classification for DUI from misdemeanor to Class 3 felony; DWLR is not a lesser-included offense of aggravated DUI.

Court neither informed potential jurors nor asked if they understood and agreed that Defendant was not required to present evidence and that his failure to testify could not be held against him; significant because Defendant did not testify and did not present evidence. Insufficient that court mentioned principles after jury was impaneled and sworn, as Defendant was deprived of right to fair trial by these omissions. Defendant was driving in wrong direction in traffic lane, and took exit ramp when instructed, but State failed to prove charge of improper lane usage which requires proving that driver did not drive as nearly as practicable within the lane.

Presumption of constitutionality of Section 5-6-4(i) of Unified Code of Corrections, which establishes alternative of intermediate sanctions to avoid potential probation revocation for technical violations of probation, has not been overcome. No separation of powers violation presented by statute, because judicial branch, through its probation officers, is exercising its own power, which is not the power of the State's Attorney, to offer intermediate sanctions, thus no infringement on powers of executive branch. Plain meaning of statute is that a defendant's completion of intermediate sanctions offered entitles him or her to dismissal of petition for revocation of probation, without exception.

Improper for trial court to have dismissed citation for driving after suspension at initial court appearance for lack of probable cause, because arresting officer not present. Defendant was not in custody, and was charged with misdemeanor; thus, probable cause preliminary hearing not required and no prejudicial denial of due process.