People v. Price

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 4th District Appellate » 2006 » People v. Price

People v. Price

State: Illinois

Court: 4th District Appellate

Docket No: 4-06-0036 Rel

Case Date: 12/12/2006

Preview:NO. 4-06-0036 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANN M. PRICE, Defendant-Appellant.

Filed: 12/12/06

) Appeal from ) Circuit Court of ) Sangamon County ) No. 02CF719 ) ) Honorable ) Leslie J. Graves, ) Judge Presiding. _________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE COOK delivered the opinion of the court: In August 2002, a grand jury indicted defendant, Ann M. Price, for the offenses of theft (720 ILCS 5/16-1(a)(2) (West 2002)) and official misconduct (720 ILCS 5/33-3 (West 2002)). October 4, 2005, defendant entered an open guilty plea to one count of theft, a Class A misdemeanor, which was accepted by the court, apparently without objection by the State. On October 5, In On

2005, a jury found defendant guilty of official misconduct. December 2005, the trial court sentenced defendant on the official-misconduct conviction to 2 years' probation and 200 hours of community service. Defendant appeals, arguing the

acceptance of her guilty plea to the theft charge barred the State's prosecution on the official-misconduct charge. affirm. I. BACKGROUND While employed by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA), defendant took a state vehicle to Chicago, attended a Barry Manilow concert, and spent the night at a hotel. We

After she returned to Springfield, she submitted a travel voucher to her employer for her travel and lodging expenses, claiming she had attended a job-fair conference sponsored by the Chicago Botanic Gardens. When later confronted about the situation,

defendant admitted she did not go to Chicago to attend a job conference and that she had fabricated a schedule for the nonexistent conference to attach to her travel voucher. In August 2002, a grand jury indicted defendant for (1) theft (720 ILCS 5/16-1(a)(2) (West 2002)) for falsifying and submitting travel documents to IEPA for reimbursement and (2) official misconduct (720 ILCS 5/33-3 (West 2002)) for falsifying and submitting travel documents for reimbursement. On October 4, 2005, before defendant's trial began, defendant pleaded guilty to theft, and the trial court accepted defendant's plea, apparently without any objection by the State. The following day, at the close of all evidence in the case, defendant moved for a directed verdict, arguing the counts for theft and official misconduct were based on the same act, and therefore, defendant could not be prosecuted on the officialmisconduct charge because she had pleaded guilty to theft. The trial court denied defendant's motion for a directed verdict. misconduct. The jury then found defendant guilty of official

The trial court sentenced defendant as stated for The record contains no indication defendant Defendant appealed.

official misconduct.

was sentenced for theft.

- 2 -

II. ANALYSIS On appeal, in her initial brief, defendant argues her conviction for official misconduct violates the one-act, onecrime doctrine because she previously pleaded guilty to theft, a charge based on the same acts, falsifying and submitting travel documents for reimbursement, as the official-misconduct charge. Defendant also argued that section 3-4(a) of the Criminal Code of 1961 (Code) (720 ILCS 5/3-4(a) (West 2002)) barred her prosecution for official misconduct. Finally, in her reply brief,

defendant argues her prosecution for official misconduct violated the Illinois double-jeopardy clause. Defendant boils down the

gist of her argument in the last line of her reply brief by stating, "Under Illinois law, the State could not proceed with the official[-]misconduct prosecution after the court accepted [defendant's] guilty plea to the lesser[-]included offense arising from the same act." A. Forfeiture The State first argues defendant forfeited her argument because the record does not contain a report or record of defendant entering her guilty plea on the theft charge. The State

cites People v. Raczkowski, 359 Ill. App. 3d 494, 496, 834 N.E.2d 596, 598-99 (2005), and People v. Toft, 355 Ill. App. 3d 1102, 1105, 824 N.E.2d 309, 312 (2005), for the proposition that an issue relating to the conduct of a hearing or proceeding is not subject to review absent a report or record of the proceeding. However, the issue in this case does not relate to the - 3 -

conduct of a hearing or proceeding.

While the record contains

neither a transcript of the plea proceeding nor a docket entry reflecting the plea, it is clear from the record defendant pleaded guilty to theft before her trial on the official-misconduct charge began, and the trial court accepted her plea. result, defendant has not forfeited this issue, and we must address defendant's substantive arguments. B. Double Jeopardy We first address defendant's argument that her prosecution for official misconduct violated the Illinois Constitution's double-jeopardy clause (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I,

Download People v. Price.pdf