Find Court Cases > Go Back to List > People v. DiPace

People v. DiPace

Case Date: 11/10/2004
Court: 2nd District Appellate
Docket No: 2-03-0469 Rel

No. 2--03--0469

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

SECOND DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE
OF ILLINOIS,

          Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

LORENZO DiPACE,

          Defendant-Appellant.

 )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)		 Appeal from the Circuit Court
of Du Page County.



No. 02--CF--506

Honorable
Kathryn E. Creswell,
Judge, Presiding.

Modified Upon Denial of Rehearing

PRESIDING JUSTICE O'MALLEY delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendant, Lorenzo DiPace, appeals from his convictions of Class 2 felony driving under theinfluence of alcohol (625 ILCS 5/11--501(c-1)(3) (West 2002)), and Class 4 felony driving whilelicense revoked (625 ILCS 5/6--303(d) (West 2002)). Defendant contends that (1) the trial courterred in denying his motion to suppress because the police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop hisvehicle; (2) his breath alcohol analysis should not have been admitted by the trial court; (3) the Statefailed to prove his prior violations of the statutes as elements of both crimes; and (4) he cannot beconvicted of both Class 2 felony driving under the influence and Class 4 felony driving while licenserevoked, because the crimes should be merged. We affirm.

I. Facts

On February 14, 2002, two women were driving north on Interstate 355 when they noticeda red Mercury Mountaineer being driven erratically in front of them. After watching the car drift outof its lane and then jerk back into its lane several times, they called the police. They provided thedispatcher with a description of the car and its license plate number. They followed the Mountaineeras it exited onto Lake Street, where they watched it drift onto the shoulder, make contact with araised curb, and also almost make contact with another car before finally pulling into a grocery storeparking lot. While the two women waited in the parking lot for police to arrive, defendant exited theMountaineer and went into the grocery store.

Defendant was still inside the grocery store when Officer Michael Gicla arrived on the scene. The two women relayed to Gicla what they had seen. They pointed out defendant's car, which wasparked in a relatively isolated area in the parking lot, and they described the driver as a white male,possibly in his forties. After providing Gicla with their names, birth dates, and phone numbers, thetwo women departed. One of the women later testified at trial.

From his police car, Gicla watched the Mountaineer until he saw defendant return to his carand drive out of the parking lot. He followed defendant for approximately one mile before he sawdefendant's car cross onto the dotted white lane-dividing lines. Gicla then activated his police lightsto pull over defendant's car. Defendant slowed and continued driving for approximately one-halfmile, passing a few minor streets, before pulling over at the next major intersection.

When Gicla approached defendant's car, he noted a strong odor of alcohol on defendant'sbreath. Gicla also noted that defendant's speech was noticeably slurred. Defendant claimed that hehad consumed 1