{ "id": 2183272, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WALTER E. JETT, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Jett", "decision_date": "2002-03-14", "docket_number": "No. 5\u201401\u20140120", "first_page": "468", "last_page": "471", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "328 Ill. App. 3d 468" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "455 N.E.2d 287", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "289" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "118 Ill. App. 3d 609", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5661168 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "611" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/118/0609-01" ] }, { "cite": "530 N.E.2d 1168", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1169" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "176 Ill. App. 3d 274", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3588371 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "276" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/176/0274-01" ] }, { "cite": "664 N.E.2d 61", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "65" }, { "page": "66" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "171 Ill. 2d 230", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 57346 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "237" }, { "page": "239" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/171/0230-01" ] }, { "cite": "726 N.E.2d 661", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "664" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "311 Ill. App. 3d 1049", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 415352 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1051" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/311/1049-01" ] }, { "cite": "667 N.E.2d 1305", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 5, "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1307" }, { "page": "1307" }, { "page": "1307" }, { "page": "1310" }, { "page": "1310" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "172 Ill. 2d 452", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 55998 ], "weight": 5, "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "457" }, { "page": "457" }, { "page": "457" }, { "page": "462-63" }, { "page": "462" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/172/0452-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 393, "char_count": 6556, "ocr_confidence": 0.788, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.8591662004228935e-08, "percentile": 0.3651699384790387 }, "sha256": "4ad1b2757d7e126acc3318d2ff24a17c5b82dd6244bf00d61fcaff92ea484ea9", "simhash": "1:b0c33a945e2fc82c", "word_count": 1118 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:11:21.532369+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. WALTER E. JETT, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE RARICK\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nAfter a bench trial in the circuit court of Montgomery County, Walter E. Jett (defendant) was found guilty of driving while license revoked, and he was sentenced to seven days in jail and one year of conditional discharge. He argues on appeal that the trial court erred in finding him guilty, because the provisions of Illinois\u2019 driving-while-revoked statute, section 6 \u2014 303 of the Illinois Vehicle Code (Code) (625 ILCS 5/6 \u2014 303 (West 2000)), do not apply when a non-Illinois driver\u2019s license has been revoked by the driver\u2019s home state only and not by Illinois. We disagree and accordingly affirm.\nThe facts of this case are simple. Defendant was driving in Illinois on May 15, 2000, at approximately 9:45 p.m., when he was stopped by police for making a turn without using a turn signal. When asked for his driver\u2019s license, defendant informed the police officer he did not have one. The officer ran defendant\u2019s name through the computer and discovered that defendant\u2019s license had been revoked by the State of Missouri. Defendant was arrested; charged, and subsequently convicted of driving while license revoked.\nWe initially note that interpreting or construing a statute is a matter of law subject to de novo review. People v. Robinson, 172 Ill. 2d 452, 457, 667 N.E.2d 1305, 1307 (1996). A fundamental rule of statutory construction is to give effect to the true intent and meaning of the legislature. In re A.M.F., 311 Ill. App. 3d 1049, 1051, 726 N.E.2d 661, 664 (2000). The most reliable indicator of legislative intent is the language of the statute itself. Robinson, 172 Ill. 2d at 457, 667 N.E.2d at 1307. Statutory language must be given its plain and ordinary meaning, and when that language is clear and unambiguous, we must apply the statute without further aids of statutory construction. Robinson, 172 Ill. 2d at 457, 667 N.E.2d at 1307; Boaden v. Department of Law Enforcement, 171 Ill. 2d 230, 237, 664 N.E.2d 61, 65 (1996).\nIt is true that previous versions of section 6 \u2014 303(a) failed to encompass nonresident drivers. E.g., 625 ILCS 5/6 \u2014 303(a) (West 1994); see People v. Weakley, 176 Ill. App. 3d 274, 530 N.E.2d 1168 (1988); People v. Brown, 118 Ill. App. 3d 609, 455 N.E.2d 287 (1983). The current, amended version of section 6 \u2014 303(a), however, includes such drivers:\n\u201cAny person who drives or is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle on any highway of this State at a time when such person\u2019s driver\u2019s license, permit[,] or privilege to do so or the privilege to obtain a driver\u2019s license or permit is revoked or suspended as provided by this Code or the law of another state, except as may be specifically allowed by a judicial driving permit, family financial responsibility driving permit, probationary license to drive, or a restricted driving permit issued pursuant to this Code or under the law of another state, shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.\u201d (Emphasis added.) 625 ILCS 5/6 \u2014 303(a) (West 2000).\nIn both Brown and Weakley, the defendant was charged with driving with a revoked or suspended license in violation of section 6 \u2014 303(a) for driving in Illinois at a time when his foreign state driver\u2019s license was revoked or suspended. In both cases, the court held that the statute as it then existed did not apply to a nonresident driver. At the time Brown was decided, the pertinent language of section 6 \u2014 303(a) read as follows: \u201cAny person who drives a motor vehicle on any highway of this State at a time when his drivers license or permit or privilege *** to obtain a license or permit under this Act is revoked or suspended as provided by this Act or any other Act ***.\u201d (Emphasis added.) Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 95\u00bd, par. 6 \u2014 303(a). The court determined that the words \u201cAct\u201d and \u201cother Act\u201d both referred to laws \u201cadopted by the Illinois General Assembly and not acts adopted by the legislatures of other States.\u201d Brown, 118 Ill. App. 3d at 611, 455 N.E.2d at 289. When Weakley was decided, the pertinent language of section 6 \u2014 303(a) read as follows: \u201cAny person who drives or is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle on any highway of this State at a time when such person\u2019s driver\u2019s license *** is revoked or suspended as provided by this Code or any other law ***.\u201d (Emphasis added.) Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 95\u00bd, par. 6 \u2014 303(a). The court decided: \u201cAlthough the legislature has amended section 6 \u2014 303 following our decision in Brown, it has in no way responded to the primary points of the Brown decision. Its substitution of \u2018this Code or any other law\u2019 for the phrase \u2018this Act or any other Act\u2019 does not reveal the intent to broaden section 6 \u2014 303(a) to include foreign State revocations or suspensions.\u201d Weakley, 176 Ill. App. 3d at 276, 530 N.E.2d at 1169. We believe that replacing \u201cany other law\u201d with \u201cunder the law of another state\u201d clearly reveals \u201cthe intent to broaden section 6 \u2014 303(a) to include foreign State revocations or suspensions.\u201d There simply is no other logical reason for adding the language \u201cunder the law of another state.\u201d No rule of construction authorizes a court to declare that the legislature did not mean what the plain language of the statute imports. Robinson, 172 Ill. 2d at 462-63, 667 N.E.2d at 1310.\nDefendant argues that under such an interpretation of the statute, Illinois could impose criminal liability for driving while license revoked, even in cases where the revocation was imposed for criminal conduct unlawful in a foreign state though not proscribed under the laws of Illinois. While this may be true, our role is limited to giving effect to the intent of the legislature as expressed through the plain language of the statute; our role is not to determine whether the policy behind that language is proper or sound. Robinson, 172 Ill. 2d at 462, 667 N.E.2d at 1310; Boaden, 171 Ill. 2d at 239, 664 N.E.2d at 66.\nFor the aforementioned reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Montgomery County.\nAffirmed.\nMAAG, RJ., and CHAPMAN, Melissa, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE RARICK" } ], "attorneys": [ "Daniel M. Kirwan and Lawrence J. O\u2019Neill, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Mt. Vernon, for appellant.", "James Roberts, State\u2019s Attorney, of Hillsboro (Norbert J. Goetten, Stephen E. Norris, and Trent M. Marshall, all 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. WALTER E. JETT, Defendant-Appellant.\nFifth District\nNo. 5\u201401\u20140120\nOpinion filed March 14, 2002.\nRehearing denied April 10, 2002.\nDaniel M. Kirwan and Lawrence J. O\u2019Neill, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Mt. Vernon, for appellant.\nJames Roberts, State\u2019s Attorney, of Hillsboro (Norbert J. Goetten, Stephen E. Norris, and Trent M. Marshall, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0468-01", "first_page_order": 486, "last_page_order": 489 }