Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Moore

OPINION FILED AUGUST 9, 1982.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

v.

WILLIE C. MOORE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



Appeal from the Circuit Court of Adams County; the Hon. Richard F. Scholz, Judge, presiding.

JUSTICE MILLS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT:

Dangerous Drug Abuse Act case.

If a defendant is certified to have successfully completed a licensed drug treatment program, can the trial court nevertheless refuse to dismiss the underlying criminal proceeding?

No.

We reverse.

FACTS

A somewhat lengthy recitation of the facts is necessary for a proper understanding of this case. On April 14, 1975, Moore was charged with theft in that he exerted unauthorized control over an automobile. At his arraignment, defendant expressed a desire to undergo treatment pursuant to the Dangerous Drug Abuse Act (DDAA) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 91 1/2, par. 120.3 et seq.). The Department of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities (DMH) subsequently determined that defendant was acceptable for treatment under the DDAA. On July 22, 1975, defendant voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial, and stipulated evidence was heard on the automobile theft charge. A finding of guilt was deferred pursuant to section 9 of the DDAA (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 91 1/2, par. 120.9) and a written order was entered committing defendant for treatment under the Act.

At the July 22 hearing, the defendant was told that during his supervision, he would have to comply with the requirements of the DMH. If he did so, he could be "discharged, dismissed from this charge." Among the conditions of defendant's supervision contained in the order committing him for treatment were:

"2. That the Defendant shall submit to the supervision and treatment of the said Department [DMH] * * * until discharged by said Department or by this Court.

3. That the Department of Mental Health * * * notify this Court of any proposed release of said Defendant from institutionalization, supervision or treatment ten (10) days prior to such release.

4. That * * * in the event the Defendant is to be discharged from the supervision of the Department [DMH] or from institutionalization, [the DMH is to] provide the Court recommended treatment or programs for post release supervision." (Emphasis added.)

Also, at a preliminary hearing held on May 22, 1976, the court stated:

"If * * * you stayed your period of time that the Department [DMH] required and did it successfully, then the trial [on charges of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.