Appeal from the Circuit Court of Champaign County; the Hon.
John G. Townsend, Judge, presiding.
JUSTICE MORTHLAND DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT:
An information was filed in the circuit court of Champaign County of July 25, 1985, charging the defendant with battery in violation of section 12-3(a)(2) of the Criminal Code of 1961 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 12-3(a)(2)). The jury found the defendant guilty of battery on October 11, 1985. A sentencing hearing commenced on November 12, 1985, and was continued to November 19, 1985. The defendant was then sentenced to probation for a period of 12 months. One of the conditions of probation was that defendant serve 120 days in the county jail.
At the hearing on November 12, 1985, the defendant testified that he was a heroin addict and that he injected heroin intravenously one to four times a day. He testified that he desired treatment for his addiction.
"I understand the Defendant is attempting to make an election for treatment as an addict under Chapter 111 1/2 here. I have not available to me at this time any evaluation by an agency designated by the Department to indicate whether or not the Defendant might be accepted for treatment by a licensed program which is available under Chapter 111 1/2. What I'm going to do accordingly is recess this sentencing hearing for a few days to have the opportunity for such an evaluation to be made."
"Now, I've told your lawyer and I've told Ms. Lyles, the probation officer who prepared this report, that I anticipate that TASC is the agency to make this evaluation. That advice to me is required by the statute before I can consider this request that you are making, Mr. Bean. And if you come back here and you haven't followed through to get the report and evaluation made, I want you to understand that I will consider that you have unelected what you say you want to do today.
THE COURT: It is your job to make sure you get there and get the evaluation made."
The record contains a letter from TASC dated November 18, 1985, advising the court that the defendant was scheduled to be evaluated for possible drug rehabilitation treatment on the 18th at 9:30 a.m. and failed to keep the appointment.
The defendant appeals contending that the trial court erred: (1) in failing to admonish him of his eligibility for treatment under the Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Act (Act) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 111 1/2, par. 6301 et seq.); and (2) by refusing to order treatment for him because he missed his appointment for evaluation by TASC, this refusal amounting to an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court.
Section 23 of the Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 111 1/2, par. 6323) provides in pertinent part:
"Sec. 23. If a court has reason to believe that an individual convicted of a crime is an addict or the individual states that he is an addict and the court finds that he is eligible to make the election provided for under Section 21, the court shall advise him that he may be placed on probation if he elects to submit to treatment and is accepted for treatment by a licensed program designated by the Department."
The supreme court held in People v. Richardson (1984), 104 Ill.2d 8, 470 N.E.2d 1024, that the above language places a duty on the trial court to inform every defendant whom it knows, or has reason to believe, is ...