{
  "id": 2658912,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALAN M. HOGAN, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Hogan",
  "decision_date": "1989-07-17",
  "docket_number": "No. 3\u201488\u20140597",
  "first_page": "267",
  "last_page": "269",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "186 Ill. App. 3d 267"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "402 N.E.2d 417",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "82 Ill. App. 3d 87",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3223362
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/82/0087-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "514 N.E.2d 983",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "989"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "118 Ill. 2d 179",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3188747
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "192"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/118/0179-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "488 N.E.2d 523",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "109 Ill. 2d 378",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3125871
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/109/0378-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "514 N.E.2d 959",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "118 Ill. 2d 124",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3188696
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/118/0124-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 291,
    "char_count": 4251,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.728,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.954612620943478e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5014825188649995
    },
    "sha256": "9ced88e6f3e2a144faa4f5966d4dcab251aa6292c31ba7b499d1c6ca1f297d10",
    "simhash": "1:996b39be98273f2c",
    "word_count": 715
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:56:50.889546+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. ALAN M. HOGAN, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE STOUDER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe defendant, Alan M. Hogan, filed a motion to dismiss a driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) charge against him, contending that it was barred by his prior conviction for possession of cannabis. The trial court denied his motion. He appeals. We affirm.\nThe record shows that on May 14, 1988, the defendant was arrested for driving while under the influence of alcohol and for possession of cannabis. The arresting officer charged the defendant with the two offenses by means of a traffic ticket on the DUI charge and a notice to appear on the cannabis charge, citing, respectively, the Illinois Vehicle Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 951/2, par. 11 \u2014 501(a)(2)) and a City of East Peoria ordinance. The charges were assigned to different courts, apparently by the clerk of the court.\nThe defendant subsequently pled guilty to the cannabis charge and was sentenced to pay a $75 fine plus court costs. He then filed a motion to dismiss the DUI charge. In his motion, he argued that his act of driving was the basis for both charges and that the principles of double jeopardy precluded successive prosecutions for the same act. At the hearing on his motion, he also argued that sections 3 \u2014 3(b) and 3 \u2014 4(b) of the Criminal Code of 1961 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, pars. 3 \u2014 303), 3 \u2014 4(b)) required that both charges be handled in a single prosecution.\nThe trial court denied the defendant\u2019s motion. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 604(f) (107 Ill. 2d R. 604(f)), the defendant brought the instant interlocutory appeal. Advancing arguments similar to those he made before the trial court, he contends that the court erred in denying his motion.\nRegarding the double jeopardy argument, we note that the test for determining whether two offenses constitute the \u201csame offense\u201d for double jeopardy purposes is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not. (People v. Totten (1987), 118 Ill. 2d 124, 514 N.E.2d 959.) A substantial overlap in the proof introduced at different prosecutions is irrelevant for double jeopardy purposes as long as the offenses charged are distinct. People v. Mueller (1985), 109 Ill. 2d 378, 488 N.E.2d 523.\nWe find the defendant\u2019s double jeopardy argument meritless. On the cannabis charge, the prosecution was required to prove that the defendant possessed cannabis. On the DUI charge, it will be required to prove that he was under the influence of alcohol. Neither of these facts is an element of the other offense. Accordingly, double jeopardy principles do not apply and the trial court correctly rejected the defendant\u2019s argument.\nWe also find unpersuasive the defendant\u2019s contention that sections 3 \u2014 3(b) and 3 \u2014 4(b) of the Criminal Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, pars. 3 \u2014 3(b), 3 \u2014 4(b)) would be violated by successive prosecutions. The compulsory joinder provisions of sections 3 \u2014 3 and 3 \u2014 4 do not apply to offenses charged by uniform citation and complaint forms \u201cintended to be used by a police officer in making a charge for traffic offenses and certain misdemeanors and petty offenses.\u201d (People v. Jackson (1987), 118 Ill. 2d 179, 192, 514 N.E.2d 983, 989.) Further, sections 3 \u2014 3(b) and 3 \u2014 4(b) do not apply when ordinance violations are involved. People v. Crabtree (1980), 82 Ill. App. 3d 87, 402 N.E.2d 417.\nThe instant defendant was charged by means of uniform citation and complaint forms, and one of the two charges was an ordinance violation. Accordingly, sections 3 \u2014 3 and 3 \u2014 4 did not apply and he could be separately prosecuted for each offense. The trial court therefore correctly rejected this argument and denied the defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Tazewell County is affirmed. The cause is remanded for further proceedings on the pending DUI charge.\nAffirmed and remanded.\nWOMBACHER, P.J., and HEIPLE, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE STOUDER"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James E. Swanson, of Peoria, for appellant.",
      "Erik I. Blanc, State\u2019s Attorney, of Pekin (Walter P. Hehner, 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. ALAN M. HOGAN, Defendant-Appellant.\nThird District\nNo. 3\u201488\u20140597\nOpinion filed July 17, 1989.\nJames E. Swanson, of Peoria, for appellant.\nErik I. Blanc, State\u2019s Attorney, of Pekin (Walter P. Hehner, of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0267-01",
  "first_page_order": 289,
  "last_page_order": 291
}