§ 10.4 Eluding the Police
§ 10.4-1 Conviction Affirmed
People v. Schmidt, 405 Ill. App. 3d 474, 938 N.E.2d 559, 345 Ill. Dec. 120 (3d Dist. 2010). Defendant was arrested after leaving a Quonset hut filled with contraband commonly used for the manufacturing of methamphetamine and fleeing and eluding the police. During the chase, defendant discarded a blue container from his vehicle which contained a substance that tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine and pseudoephedrine.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of unlawful use of property under 720 ILCS 646/35 for the use of his pickup truck while in possession of methamphetamine, unlawful possession of methamphetamine precursor, unlawful possession of methamphetamine, obstructing justice, and aggravated fleeing or attempting to elude a peace officer. Defendant was sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment for each conviction.
On appeal, defendant contended that his conviction for unlawful use of property should be reversed because Section 35 of the Methamphetamine Control and Community Protection Act (720 ILCS 646/35) is: (1) unconstitutional as it bears no reasonable relationship to a legitimate state interest; (2) overbroad as it criminalizes innocent conduct; and (3) unconstitutionally vague. The appellate court rejected each of these claims. The court stated that prohibiting the use of a vehicle to bring about a violation of the Methamphetamine Control and Community Protection Act is a reasonable method of accomplishing the explicitly stated legitimate objective of reducing or eliminating methamphetamine-related crimes in the state. The Court found that Section 35 is not vague but is sufficiently clear to provide a person of ordinary intelligence with fair notice that, if he uses a vehicle to bring about a violation of the Act, he violates that section of the Act, and commits a Class 2 felony. The court also flatly rejected defendant's over-breadth challenge as lacking any legal support.
Additionally defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for possession of methamphetamine precursor. The appellate court rejected this claim finding that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, proved all the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Finally defendant contended that his convictions for possession of methamphetamine and unlawful possession of methamphetamine precursor with intent to manufacture violated the One-Act, One-Crime principle because they were lesser-included offenses of unlawful use of property. While the State conceded this argument, the court found that only defendant's unlawful possession of methamphetamine was a lesser-included offense where defendant was...
