People v. Vente , 970 N.E.2d 578 ( 2012 )

ILLINOIS OFFICIAL REPORTS
Appellate Court
People v. Vente, 2012 IL App (3d) 100600Appellate Court THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
Caption KATHY VENTE, Defendant-Appellant.
District & No. Third District
Docket No. 3-10-0600
Order filed February 29, 2012
Motion to publish
allowed June 6, 2012
Opinion filed June 6, 2012
Held Defendant’s conviction for driving while controlled substances were
(Note: This syllabus present in her urine was reversed where the stipulated facts established
constitutes no part of that the presence of the substances was the result of defendant taking a
the opinion of the court prescribed cough medication, where the presence of morphine and
but has been prepared codeine was consistent with the use of prescription medicine, defendant
by the Reporter of had a valid prescription, she took the prescribed dosage, the presence of
Decisions for the the substances was not the result of “unlawful use or consumption,” and
convenience of the there was little evidence of unsafe driving.
reader.)
Decision Under Appeal from the Circuit Court of Will County, No. 09-DT-1781; the Hon.
Review Raymond Bolden and the Hon. Brian E. Barrett, Judges, presiding.
Judgment Reversed.
Counsel on Glenn Sroka, of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Ottawa, for
Appeal appellant.
James Glasgow, State’s Attorney, of Joliet (Terry A. Mertel and Justin A.
Nicolosi, both of State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, of
counsel), for the People.
Panel JUSTICE O’BRIEN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Justices Lytton and McDade concurred in the judgment and opinion.
OPINION
¶1 Following a bench trial, defendant, Kathy Vente, was found guilty of driving while a
controlled substance was present in her urine. 625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(6) (West 2008). The
trial court sentenced her to one year of court supervision. On appeal, defendant argues that
her conviction should be reversed because the stipulated facts at trial established that the
presence of controlled substances in her urine was the result of taking cough medication
pursuant to a valid prescription. We reverse defendant’s conviction.
¶2 FACTS
¶3 Defendant was charged by information with three counts of driving under the influence
of drugs. Count I alleged that defendant drove under the influence of codeine and/or
morphine, to a degree rendering her incapable of safely driving. 625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(4)
(West 2008). Counts II and III alleged that defendant drove while there was any amount of
codeine and morphine in her breath, blood, or urine, resulting from unlawful use or
consumption of a controlled substance. 625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(6) (West 2008). Defendant
also received traffic citations for improper lane usage and making an improper turn.
¶4 The cause proceeded to a bench trial, where Officer Theresa Cancialosi testified that she
pulled defendant over after she observed improper lane usage and an improper turn. When
Cancialosi approached defendant’s vehicle, she noticed a prescription bottle of generic
codeine on the passenger seat. Defendant said she had been taking multiple medications
because she was sick, but denied drinking anything. Following field sobriety tests, Cancialosi
arrested defendant for driving under the influence.
¶5 Following her arrest, defendant consented to a urinalysis. The parties stipulated that
defendant’s urine contained codeine, morphine, and promethazine and that the presence of
those substances was consistent with the use of the prescription medicine found in the
passenger seat of her vehicle.
¶6 Defendant testified that on the day of her arrest, she was in poor health and had been
-2-
suffering from bronchitis. As a result, defendant took the recommended dose of prescription
cough medicine that her doctor prescribed for her. Defendant testified that the cough
medicine did not impair her ability to drive her vehicle safely.
¶7 The trial court found defendant not guilty of count I and the traffic offenses, but guilty
of counts II and III.
¶8 Defendant’s motion to reconsider was denied. The trial court sentenced defendant to one
year of supervision. Defendant appeals.
¶9 ANALYSIS
¶ 10 On appeal, defendant argues that her conviction should be reversed because the stipulated
facts at trial established that the presence of controlled substances in her urine was the result
of taking prescription cough medicine. The State confesses error.
¶ 11 Section 11-501(a)(6) of the Illinois Vehicle Code states that a person shall not drive or
be in actual physical control of any vehicle while there is any amount of a drug, substance,
or compound in the person’s breath, blood, or urine resulting from the “unlawful use or
consumption” of a controlled substance. 625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(6) (West 2008). This section
does not require proof of a driver’s impairment, but instead only requires that a driver
unlawfully use or consume any amount of a controlled substance. See 625 ILCS 5/11-
501(a)(6) (West 2008); People v. Martin, 2011 IL 109102.
¶ 12 Section 11-501(b) states that even if a person is legally entitled to use drugs, it shall not
be a defense to a charge of driving under the influence of drugs. 625 ILCS 5/11-501(b) (West
2008). However, section 11-501(b) does not bar a driver from lawfully using prescription
medications, as long as such use does not render her incapable of driving safely. People v.
Rodriguez, 398 Ill. App. 3d 436 (2009).
¶ 13 In the instant case, the evidence at trial established that defendant had morphine and
codeine in her urine sample and that the presence of both these drugs was consistent with the
use of prescription cough medicine. The evidence further established that defendant had a
valid prescription for the cough medicine and that she had taken the medication in
accordance with the prescribed dosage. Therefore, the presence of controlled substances in
defendant’s urine was not the result of “unlawful use or consumption.” 625 ILCS 5/11-
501(a)(6) (West 2008); see Rodriguez, 398 Ill. App. 3d 436. In addition, the record contains
little evidence of unsafe driving, and the State concedes that section 11-501(b) does not apply
to a violation of section 11-501(a)(6). As such, defendant’s conviction must be reversed.
¶ 14 CONCLUSION
¶ 15 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Will County is reversed.
¶ 16 Reversed.
-3-