Find Legal Information

The defendant, Alejandro Garcia, appeals from the denial of his motion to dismisson double jeopardy grounds. For the following reasons, we affirm.

On September 12, 2000, the defendant was issued a ticket for the illegal squealingor screeching of tires on Wilson and Van Buren Streets in Newton, Jasper County, Illinois,in violation of section 11-505 of the Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/11-505 (West2000)). The ticket noted that no court appearance was required, and on October 11, 2000,the defendant pleaded guilty by signing the back of the ticket and mailing the fine to thecircuit clerk's office. On the same day, the State filed a reckless-driving charge against thedefendant, which was nol-prossed on January 23, 2001, and refiled on February 22, 2001. The State alleged, "[On September 12, 2000, the defendant] drove a motor vehicle onWilson and Van Buren [S]treets, in Newton, Jasper County, Illinois, with wilful and wantondisregard for the safety of children, in that he accelerated his car quickly while several youngchildren were playing and nearly struck one of the children who was riding a bicycle, inviolation of [section 11-503 of the Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/11-503 (West2000))]."

On July 17, 2001, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the reckless-driving chargeon double jeopardy grounds. The defendant claimed that his conviction for the illegalsquealing or screeching of tires barred his prosecution for reckless driving under section 3-4of the Criminal Code of 1961 (720 ILCS 5/3-4 (West 2000)) and the fifth and fourteenthamendments to the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., amends. V, XIV). He alsoclaimed that, pursuant to section 3-3 of the Criminal Code of 1961 (720 ILCS 5/3-3 (West2000)), the State should have charged the offense of reckless driving with the offense ofsquealing or screeching of tires. On August 14, 2001, the trial court denied the defendant'smotion to dismiss. On August 17, 2001, the defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.

On appeal, the defendant argues that the State is barred by double jeopardy principlesfrom prosecuting him for reckless driving where it had previously obtained a conviction forthe squealing or screeching of tires. The defendant argues that the squealing or screechingof tires is a lesser-included offense of reckless driving.

The double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment, applicable to the states throughthe fourteenth amendment, provides that no person shall "be subject for the same offenceto be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." U.S. Const., amend. V. "This protection appliesboth to successive punishments and to successive prosecutions for the same criminaloffense." United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 696, 125 L. Ed. 2d 556, 113 S. Ct. 2849,2855 (1993). "In both the multiple punishment and multiple prosecution contexts, ***where the two offenses for which the defendant is punished or tried cannot survive the'same-elements' test, the double jeopardy bar applies." Dixon, 509 U.S. at 696, 125 L. Ed.2d 556, 113 S. Ct. at 2856. "The same-elements test, sometimes referred to as the'Blockburger' test, inquires whether each offense contains an element not contained in theother; if not, they are the 'same offence' and double jeopardy bars additional punishment andsuccessive prosecution." Dixon, 509 U.S. at 696, 125 L. Ed. 2d 556, 113 S. Ct. at 2856; seeBlockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304, 76 L. Ed. 306, 52 S. Ct. 180 (1932). "Thistest emphasizes the elements of the two crimes." Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 166, 53 L.Ed. 2d 187, 97 S. Ct. 2221, 2226 (1977). " 'If each requires proof of a fact that the otherdoes not, the Blockburger test is satisfied, notwithstanding a substantial overlap in the proofoffered to establish the crimes.' " Brown, 432 U.S. at 166, 53 L. Ed. 2d 187, 97 S. Ct. at2226 (quoting Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770, 785 n.17, 43 L. Ed. 2d 616, 95 S. Ct. 1284, 1293 n.17 (1975)). Pursuant to the Blockburger test, the prosecution of a lesser-included offense, which by its definition requires no proof beyond that which is required forthe greater offense, would prevent the subsequent prosecution on the greater offense. Brown, 432 U.S. at 167-69, 53 L. Ed. 2d 187, 97 S. Ct. at 2226-27. Here, the defendantargues that the squealing or screeching of tires is a lesser-included offense of recklessdriving because, he claims, it does not require proof beyond that necessary to prove recklessdriving. A careful review of the applicable statutes, as well as an analysis of pertinent caselaw, however, indicates that the squealing or screeching of tires is not a lesser-includedoffense of reckless driving.

Reckless driving requires driving a vehicle with a wilful or wanton disregard for thesafety of persons or property. People v. Foster, 176 Ill. App. 3d 406, 410 (1988); 625 ILCS5/11-503 (West 2000). In Foster, 176 Ill. App. 3d at 410-11, this court examined thedefendant's claim that driving too fast for conditions was a lesser-included offense ofreckless driving. The court noted that, despite the substantial overlap in proof, driving toofast for conditions was not a statutory element of reckless driving and such evidence wouldnot be necessary for a conviction of that offense. Foster, 176 Ill. App. 3d at 410. As aresult, the court concluded that driving too fast for conditions was not a lesser-includedoffense of reckless driving. Foster, 176 Ill. App. 3d at 411.

In the present case, the defendant claims that the only way the State could prove hiswilful or wanton disregard is by proving the same element he admitted in his conviction forsquealing tires-that he accelerated his vehicle rapidly. However, squealing or screechingtires does not require the movement of the vehicle. People v. Studley, 259 Ill. App. 3d 556,559 (1994). While reckless driving may include squealing or screeching tires, squealing orscreeching tires is not a statutory element of reckless driving, and such evidence would notbe necessary for a conviction for that offense. Nor would squealing or screeching tiresautomatically establish that the defendant's conduct was so excessive that it constitutedwilful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property. Simply put, reckless drivingrequires a wilful and wanton mental state, which squealing or screeching tires does not;squealing or screeching tires requires the noise of squealing or screeching, which recklessdriving does not. We therefore conclude that the offense of squealing or screeching tires isnot a lesser-included offense of reckless driving. See Foster, 176 Ill. App. 3d at 410-11. Because squealing or screeching tires is not a lesser-included offense of reckless driving, theState is not barred from prosecuting the defendant on the charge of reckless driving, and thetrial court properly denied the defendant's motion to dismiss.

The defendant also argues that the charges of squealing and screeching tires andreckless driving were required to be brought in a single prosecution pursuant to section 3-3of the Criminal Code of 1961 (720 ILCS 5/3-3 (West 2000)). However, section 3-3(b) ofthe Criminal Code of 1961 (720 ILCS 5/3-3(b) (West 2000)) requires a single prosecutionfor several offenses based on the same conduct only if the several offenses are known to the"proper prosecuting officer" at the time of commencing the prosecution. The "properprosecuting officer" refers to the State's Attorney in the county in which the offense wascommitted and his or her properly constituted assistant State's Attorneys. People v. Pohl,47 Ill. App. 2d 232, 241 (1964). Thus, the court in Pohl held that a police officer'sknowledge that the defendant's conduct established the commission of more than oneoffense was not knowledge of such facts by a "proper prosecuting officer." Pohl, 47 Ill.App. 2d at 243.

Similarly, in the present case, the defendant was issued a ticket for squealing orscreeching tires, which did not require a court appearance. Because the State's Attorney'soffice does not participate in no-appearance tickets, the State's Attorney's office did not haveknowledge of both offenses at the time of commencing the prosecution. Accordingly, thesquealing-or-screeching-tires charge and the reckless-driving charge did not have to bebrought in a single prosecution.

For the foregoing reasons, the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to dismisson double jeopardy grounds is affirmed.

Affirmed.

WELCH and CHAPMAN, JJ., concur.