{
  "id": 2583083,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RUSTY L. SOWERS, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Sowers",
  "decision_date": "1990-10-10",
  "docket_number": "No. 5-88-0813",
  "first_page": "1059",
  "last_page": "1061",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "203 Ill. App. 3d 1059"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "510 N.E.2d 614",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "156 Ill. App. 3d 918",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3505645
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/156/0918-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "181 Ill. App. 3d 981",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        8499540
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "987"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/181/0981-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "537 N.E.2d 1153",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1157"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "472 N.E.2d 1228",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "129 Ill. App. 3d 674",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3490707
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/129/0674-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 266,
    "char_count": 4597,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.775,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.984513963083102e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5381952770219423
    },
    "sha256": "8ee6f2c3226e67b0f7a5d66fb1b1c931eab9c9fc68e12c0f83fa9bd5876dbd8d",
    "simhash": "1:a8ae4dc5735b54b5",
    "word_count": 790
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:06:38.828019+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RUSTY L. SOWERS, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE CHAPMAN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe State appeals from a judgment of the circuit court of Effing-ham County granting defendant\u2019s petition to rescind the statutory summary suspension of his license. Defendant has not filed a brief with this court. We proceed to address the merits of the State\u2019s appeal. Haeflinger v. City of Wood Dale (1984), 129 Ill. App. 3d 674, 472 N.E.2d 1228.\nOn October 6, 1988, defendant was arrested and charged by a verified complaint with driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) (111. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 95^2, par. ll-501(a)(2)). A blood-alcohol test was requested by the arresting officer pursuant to section 11\u2014 501.1(a) of the Illinois Vehicle Code (the Code) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 95V2, par. 11 \u2014 501.1(a)). Defendant, after refusing to take the test, was given immediate notice by the arresting officer of the statutory suspension of his driving privileges. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 95V2, par. 11 \u2014 501.1(f).) Confirmation of statutory summary suspension of driving privileges was sent to defendant by the Secretary of State stating that defendant\u2019s suspension would begin on November 21, 1988, and end on November 21, 1989. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 951/2, par. 11 \u2014 501.l(i).\nDefendant\u2019s first court date was set for November 7, 1988. On November 3, 1988, the defendant filed a petition for a summary suspension hearing pursuant to section 2 \u2014 118.1 of the Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 951/2, par. 2 \u2014 118.1). On December 9, 1988, the defendant filed a motion to rescind the statutory summary suspension based on the court\u2019s failure to hold a rescission hearing within 30 days of defendant\u2019s November 3, 1988, request for a hearing, as required under section 2 \u2014 118.1 of the Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 951/2, par. 2 \u2014 118.1). The motion was heard on December 12, 1988, and on December 13, 1988, defendant\u2019s motion was granted. It is from this order that the State appeals.\nThe sole issue presented on appeal is whether the defendant\u2019s statutory right to a hearing within 30 days begins to run upon the mere filing with the clerk of the circuit court of a petition for a rescission hearing. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 951/2, par. 2 \u2014 118.1(b).) We are of the opinion that it does not, and we therefore reverse.\nThis very issue was discussed in People v. Grange (1989), 181 Ill.\nApp. 3d 981, 537 N.E.2d 1153. In that case the defendant filed his petition with the circuit clerk; however, he made no attempt to have the motion set for hearing. In reversing, the court stated, \u201cthe mere filing with the circuit court clerk of a petition requesting a hearing does not start the running of the 30-day time period in which a hearing is to be held but that, to be sufficient, such a request for a hearing must be brought to the attention of the court so that a hearing date can be set.\u201d People v. Grange (1989), 181 Ill. App. 3d 981, 987, 537 N.E.2d 1153,1157.\nIn this case, as in People v. Grange, the defendant made no attempt to have his motion set for a hearing date. It is clear from the foregoing that the defendant must, at the very least, make an attempt to have his motion heard. Therefore we hold that the trial court erred in ordering defendant\u2019s statutory summary suspension rescinded for failure to hold a hearing within 30 days because the 30-day period did not begin to run until defendant made a request to the court for a hearing. Since the request did not occur until December 9, 1988, the trial court erred in allowing the defendant\u2019s motion to rescind the summary suspension on December 13,1988.\nWe note that In re Summary Suspension of Driver\u2019s License of Trainor (1987), 156 Ill. App. 3d 918, 510 N.E.2d 614, the case relied on by the trial court, is distinguishable from this case. In In re Trainor the defendant filed his petition and attempted to have his motion set for hearing. However, the hearing was not held within 30 days of this attempt. Trainor is not controlling under the facts of this case. This defendant made no attempt to have his motion heard. We therefore reverse the judgment of the circuit court and remand the cause for further proceedings.\nReversed and remanded.\nGOLDENHERSH and RARICK, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE CHAPMAN"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Paula Phillips, State\u2019s Attorney, of Effingham (Kenneth R. Boyle, Stephen E. Norris, and Debra A. Buchman, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People.",
      "No brief filed for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RUSTY L. SOWERS, Defendant-Appellee.\nFifth District\nNo. 5 \u2014 88\u20140813\nOpinion filed October 10, 1990.\nPaula Phillips, State\u2019s Attorney, of Effingham (Kenneth R. Boyle, Stephen E. Norris, and Debra A. Buchman, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People.\nNo brief filed for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "1059-01",
  "first_page_order": 1081,
  "last_page_order": 1083
}