{ "id": 5251386, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DONALD S. SALB, Defendant-Appellee (Jim Edgar, Secretary of State, Appellant)", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Salb", "decision_date": "1991-12-13", "docket_number": "No. 1\u201490\u20143677", "first_page": "610", "last_page": "613", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "224 Ill. App. 3d 610" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "552 N.E.2d 1329", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "196 Ill. App. 3d 207", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2491846 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "211" }, { "page": "213" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/196/0207-01" ] }, { "cite": "542 N.E.2d 711", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "129 Ill. 2d 88", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5567088 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "107" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/129/0088-01" ] }, { "cite": "548 N.E.2d 757", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "192 Ill. App. 3d 326", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2506940 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/192/0326-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 441, "char_count": 7169, "ocr_confidence": 0.784, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.15692111779489848 }, "sha256": "fa8529a8b5434f4e0e73297773f7d1f7432851966c74cf45fe40ff9b91a2e777", "simhash": "1:caeedfaf6e489f34", "word_count": 1221 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:10:25.672470+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. DONALD S. SALB, Defendant-Appellee (Jim Edgar, Secretary of State, Appellant)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE MURRAY\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis is an appeal by Jim Edgar, the former Secretary of State. He appeals from an order of the circuit court entered on November 20, 1990, which directed the office of the Secretary of State to issue Salb a judicial driving permit (JDP) and denied a stay order pending appeal.\nThe case began as People v. Salb (Docket No. X7\u2014472\u2014946). Salb was arrested on December 7, 1989, for driving while under the influence (DUI), and he received a statutory 12-month suspension of his driving privileges effective January 22, 1990, for that reason. On April 27, 1990, Salb pled guilty to DUI and was ordered to serve 24 months\u2019 supervision.\nIn addition to pleading guilty, Salb petitioned the court on April 27, 1990, for a judicial driving permit, and on October 26, 1990, the trial court issued its order granting the request and directing the Secretary of State to issue Salb a JDP. No party appealed that order.\nOn November 7, 1990, a supervisor in what is labeled the DUI Review Unit of the Secretary of State\u2019s office sent a letter addressed to a supervisor in the circuit court clerk\u2019s office of the fifth municipal district returning the order to issue the JDP to the clerk and suggesting that Salb was a second offender and not entitled to a judicial driving permit because his December 7, 1989, arrest was within five years of a previous implied consent supervision. The letter further indicated that the trial judge should \u201creassess the issuance of the JDP\u201d and that the Secretary of State\u2019s office should be notified if the court wished \u201cto again officially order the issuance of the JDP\u201d so that a stay order pending an appeal could be sought.\nThe circuit court clerk took no action, never notifying the court of the letter from the Secretary of State. It wasn\u2019t until Salb petitioned the court for relief that the situation was made known to the court.\nOn November 20, 1990, the trial court held a hearing upon Salb\u2019s petition to reassess the issuance of the JDP. At this hearing the assistant State\u2019s Attorney agreed with Salb\u2019s counsel that the JDP had been properly granted in accordance with the law. Nonetheless, the State requested a stay order since the Secretary of State had requested that this action be taken. The trial judge again ordered that the Secretary of State issue Salb a JDP and denied the stay since it appeared that the suspension would terminate on January 22, 1991, in any event.\nAn appeal was then taken by the Secretary of State through the present Attorney General. Notice of appeal was served on the defendant, through his trial lawyer, but not the State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County, who represented the People in the trial court during the proceedings that resulted in the October 26, 1990, order granting the JDP, and the only briefs filed were by the Secretary of State through the present Attorney General. Further, the record reveals that the notice of appeal was not filed-stamped until December 21, 1990, and no motion for a stay was ever filed in this court.\nBased upon the facts of this case, we must dismiss the appeal. It appears from the record, and the Attorney General agrees, that Salb\u2019s 12-month suspension became effective on January 22, 1990, and thus the suspension would have expired on January 22, 1991. In light of this fact, we believe that any issue tendered by the Secretary of State\u2019s appeal became moot on January 22, 1991, a month before the record was filed in this court.\nAlthough this court could have chosen to consider this case under the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine (People v. Moffat (1989), 192 Ill. App. 3d 326, 548 N.E.2d 757), we are not required to do so. Since \u201cfirst offender\u201d status, which is at issue in this appeal, has been addressed in a number of other cases, we decline to review it here.\nWe have highlighted the facts of this case, however, to draw attention to what we feel are problems with the procedure set forth in section 6 \u2014 206.1 of the Illinois Vehicle Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 95\u00bd, par. 6\u2014206.1) as interpreted by the Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Pine (1989), 129 Ill. 2d 88, 542 N.E.2d 711. In Pine the majority held that it did not violate the separation of powers doctrine to allow the Secretary of State to appeal orders of the circuit court which direct the Secretary of State to issue a JDP pursuant to section 6 \u2014 206.1. In interpreting the statute in this manner, the supreme court gave the Secretary of State the authority to review a circuit court\u2019s ruling that a JDP should issue, disregard the order to issue a JDP and return it to the court for \u201creassessment,\u201d and then appeal any court \u201creassessment\u201d that is adverse to its own.\nThree justices dissented, believing that the legislature did not intend such a result when it amended the statute to allow for the issuance of JDPs. In his dissent, Justice Clark, joined by Justices Stamos and Calvo, opined that the majority\u2019s interpretation of the statute was \u201cillogical since it would require that circuit courts make two separate determinations on the same issue in JDP proceedings\u201d and would cause both judicial and executive time and resources to be wasted. Pine, 129 Ill. 2d at 107.\nJust as the dissenting justices in Pine predicted, the procedure currently being followed often requires a duplication of effort and gives rise to a number of appeals. For this reason, we agree with the court\u2019s comments in People v. Kerr (1990), 196 Ill. App. 3d 207, 211, 552 N.E.2d 1329, that \u201c[t]he number of appeals challenging the issuance of JDPs on the basis that the recipient was not a first offender within the meaning of section 11 \u2014 500 suggests one or more problems with the procedures for making this determination.\u201d\nThe Kerr court delineated certain pitfalls with the current procedure and changes that could be made that would \u201cmaterially assist the circuit court in evaluating a petitioner\u2019s eligibility for a JDP.\u201d (196 Ill. App. 3d at 213.) In addition to the problems set forth in Kerr, we have observed that, as in the present case, the Secretary\u2019s \u201creturn\u201d of the order to the circuit court clerk can sometimes elude the notice of the circuit court. This causes unnecessary delay. Consequently, we join with the Kerr court in respectfully suggesting that the Secretary of State, the legislature or our supreme court take appropriate steps to insure that the matter of a citizen\u2019s entitlement to a JDP be determined more accurately and expeditiously, without the necessity of repetitious practices which tax the court\u2019s time and resources.\nThe appeal is dismissed for mootness.\nAppeal dismissed.\nMcNULTY, P.J., and GORDON, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE MURRAY" } ], "attorneys": [ "Roland W. Burris, Attorney General, of Springfield (Rosalyn B. Kaplan, Solicitor General, and John A. Morrissey, Assistant Attorney General, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellant Jim Edgar.", "No brief filed for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DONALD S. SALB, Defendant-Appellee (Jim Edgar, Secretary of State, Appellant).\nFirst District (5th Division)\nNo. 1\u201490\u20143677\nOpinion filed December 13, 1991.\nModified on denial of rehearing February 7, 1992.\nRoland W. Burris, Attorney General, of Springfield (Rosalyn B. Kaplan, Solicitor General, and John A. Morrissey, Assistant Attorney General, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellant Jim Edgar.\nNo brief filed for appellee." }, "file_name": "0610-01", "first_page_order": 634, "last_page_order": 637 }