{
  "id": 2433799,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RALPH HALSALL, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Halsall",
  "decision_date": "1989-01-10",
  "docket_number": "Nos. 3-88-0276, 3-88-0277 cons.",
  "first_page": "617",
  "last_page": "620",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "178 Ill. App. 3d 617"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "445 N.E.2d 931",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "112 Ill. App. 3d 617",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5432069
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/112/0617-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "338 N.E.2d 168",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "61 Ill. 2d 583",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2965815
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/61/0583-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 415,
    "char_count": 5813,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.761,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.603562354376516e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5264899613838491
    },
    "sha256": "d6940a7cedfad47e1fba3dc927846791fc23f0c30cdb0403991b28cac5af0024",
    "simhash": "1:07eaec97ff66ee13",
    "word_count": 975
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:15:09.210343+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RALPH HALSALL, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE STOUDER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nOn March 29, 1988, the defendant, Ralph Halsall, was found guilty in a jury trial for driving under the influence of alcohol and improper lane usage. The defendant appeals from his convictions and sentence. We reverse.\nCambridge police officer Thomas Wiley testified that on the evening of December 4, 1987, he observed the defendant\u2019s vehicle make a right turn onto an unmarked street. The defendant turned onto the left-hand side of the road so that his car was completely in the opposite lane of traffic. The car slowly drifted back into the right lane. Officer Wiley followed the defendant onto Illinois Route 81, which was marked with a center line. While within the city limits the defendant drove his vehicle once across the center line and, after increasing his speed to an estimated 70 miles per hour, crossed the center line two more times. When the defendant crossed the center line, approximately one-half of his car was over the line.\nOfficer Wiley said that he turned on his flashing light and the defendant pulled over. The defendant appeared to have been drinking, so the. officer asked him to perform some field sobriety tests. The defendant failed the tests.\nThe defendant argues on appeal that he was not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of improper lane usage. The defendant contends that there was no evidence that when he moved outside the lane he did so without determining that the movement could be made safely.\nSection 11 \u2014 709(a) of the Illinois Vehicle Code, which prohibits improper lane usage, states that a vehicle on a divided roadway shall be driven within a single lane as nearly as possible and shall not be moved from the lane until the driver has determined that the movement can be made safely. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 95V2, par. 11 \u2014 709(a).\nThere was no evidence that when the defendant moved outside of his lane he endangered himself, pedestrians, or other vehicles. Accordingly, we find that the State failed to prove that when the defendant moved outside of his lane he did so without first determining that the movement could be made safely.\nThe defendant also argues on appeal that the trial judge abused his discretion in sentencing. The defendant contends that the trial judge was predisposed against granting supervision to offenders convicted of driving under the influence and that the judge acted arbitrarily in denying the defendant supervision.\nAt sentencing, after the defendant requested supervision the trial judge made the following comment:\n\u201cI don\u2019t like to take the heat of someone else\u2019s having driven on the highways under the influence of alcohol. Why should the bench take the heat for that? The public is just upset with people driving on the highways under the influence of alcohol. And I don\u2019t see any reason why they shouldn\u2019t have a conviction for it. And if a second conviction comes up the penalty will' be stiffer and third you\u2019re almost certain to go to jail when that happens and I\u2019m talking about D.U.I. where there\u2019s no accident, no property damage and no personal injury.\nSo I understand the hardship that\u2019s imposed from entering a conviction but I don\u2019t see why the Judge should be asked to help him escape from the consequences. If that\u2019s what he\u2014 What he did and that\u2019s what the jury said he did and then I think he should have a conviction. I\u2019m not saying that he should go to jail. I don\u2019t know why he\u2019s entitled to Court supervision, as someone would do if they came in. I haven\u2019t even accepted plea negotiations on that, Mr. Collinson.\u201d\nUpon defense counsel\u2019s questioning whether the judge believed that no offender convicted of driving under the influence should get supervision, the judge stated:\n\u201cI\u2019m just saying that I haven\u2019t found a court case yet that I have granted but I don\u2019t hear too many of these you know. Most of those are handled by the associate judges. But I\u2019ve had cases where negotiated pleas are presented to me that contemplate a plea of guilty and make a finding and enter an order of Court supervision and I have declined those because of what I consider to be the seriousness of this. As long as the State is here arguing that that\u2019s what we want is a conviction I think they\u2019re entitled to a conviction. If they tell me that I\u2019m not insisting on a conviction then I\u2019ll consider your request.\u201d\nThe judge then sentenced the defendant to one year of probation, participation in an alcohol education program, and a $500 fine.\nAlthough a trial judge has broad discretion in sentencing, he should not impose a sentence arbitrarily nor should he superimpose his personal belief in the severity of the crime charged. People v. Bolyard (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 583, 338 N.E.2d 168; People v. Williams (1983), 112 Ill. App. 3d 617, 445 N.E.2d 931.\nThe trial judge\u2019s comments indicate that it was virtually certain that no defendant convicted of driving under the influence would receive supervision. Nor did the trial judge give due consideration to the factors that may warrant supervision.\nAccordingly, we reverse the judgment of conviction for improper lane usage. We affirm the defendant\u2019s conviction for driving under the influence but vacate the sentence imposed for such offense and remand this case to the circuit court of Henry County for a new sentencing hearing before a different judge.\nReversed and remanded.\nWOMBACHER and SCOTT, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE STOUDER"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Kenneth M. Collinson, of Collinson & Harrow, of Milan, for appellant.",
      "Larry VanBerSnick, State\u2019s Attorney, of Cambridge (John X. Breslin, of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RALPH HALSALL, Defendant-Appellant.\nThird District\nNos. 3-88-0276, 3-88-0277 cons.\nOpinion filed January 10, 1989.\nKenneth M. Collinson, of Collinson & Harrow, of Milan, for appellant.\nLarry VanBerSnick, State\u2019s Attorney, of Cambridge (John X. Breslin, of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0617-01",
  "first_page_order": 639,
  "last_page_order": 642
}