City of West Chicago v. Mendoza

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: May 5, 2026
• Docket: 3-24-0660
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOTICE: This order was filed under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

2026 IL App (3d) 240660-U

Order filed May 5, 2026 ____________________________________________________________________________

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

THIRD DISTRICT

THE CITY OF WEST CHICAGO, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of the 18th Judicial Circuit, Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Du Page County, Illinois, ) v. ) Appeal No. 3-24-0660 ) Circuit No. 23-DT-1557 ) MOISES MENDOZA-MENDOZA, ) Honorable ) Robert A. Miller, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding. ____________________________________________________________________________

PRESIDING JUSTICE HETTEL delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Holdridge and Anderson concurred in the judgment. ____________________________________________________________________________

ORDER

¶1 Held: The evidence presented was sufficient to sustain defendant’s conviction for driving while under the influence of alcohol.

¶2 Defendant, Moises Mendoza-Mendoza, appeals his conviction for driving while under the

influence of alcohol (DUI), arguing the evidence introduced at trial was insufficient to prove him

guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We affirm.

¶3 I. BACKGROUND ¶4 Defendant was charged with DUI (625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(2) (West 2022)), improper lane

usage (id. § 11-709(a)), driving without a valid license (id. § 6-101), and illegal transportation of

alcohol (id. § 11-502(a)). Defendant waived his right to a jury trial, and, with the assistance of an

interpreter, the case proceeded to a bench trial.

¶5 At trial, West Chicago police officer Blake Bertany testified that he had conducted

approximately 170 DUI arrests during his nine-year career. He had received approximately 60

hours of DUI detection training and was certified in the administration of standardized field

sobriety tests.

¶6 At approximately 10:48 p.m. on August 11, 2023, Bertany observed defendant’s vehicle

cross over the center line and then continue to travel onto the shoulder. While straddling the

shoulder line, defendant’s vehicle drove within “a few feet” of a pedestrian walking along the

shoulder. As a result of his observations, Bertany initiated a traffic stop by activating his

emergency lights and defendant stopped his vehicle in a nearby parking lot. The State introduced

dash camera video from Bertany’s squad car that showed defendant’s vehicle crossed over the

center line while completing a right turn. The vehicle then crossed onto the shoulder and briefly

returned to the roadway before crossing onto the shoulder again.

¶7 Bertany’s body camera video was also admitted as evidence. In the video, Bertany

approached the driver’s side of defendant’s vehicle and proceeded to question and provide

instructions to defendant in English. Bertany testified that defendant communicated with him in

English and responded appropriately to his questions. Bertany asked defendant for his driver’s

license and proof of insurance. Defendant explained that he was giving his friend a ride home

and that he had an appointment scheduled for his license the following week. Defendant

provided Bertany with his driver’s license, which had expired. Defendant continued to search for

2 his insurance card while Bertany returned to his squad car. A minute later, defendant approached

the squad car and handed Bertany a document. Bertany replied that it had expired. The dash

camera video showed defendant stumbling as he walked back to his vehicle from Bertany’s

squad car. Defendant initially denied consuming any alcohol but later admitted that he had one

beer. Bertany smelled the strong odor of an alcoholic beverage emanating from defendant and

noticed he had bloodshot eyes. Based on these observations, Bertany asked defendant to perform

field sobriety tests.

¶8 Bertany first instructed defendant to perform the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test.

Bertany testified that defendant swayed side to side during the test and had to be reminded to

follow Bertany’s finger with only his eyes. Bertany observed all six clues indicating alcohol

consumption including a lack of smooth pursuit, maximum deviation, and 48 degrees onset of

nystagmus. The body camera video showed defendant repeatedly moving his head during the

test, contrary to Bertany’s instructions. When corrected, defendant agreed by saying “okay” and

briefly stopped moving his head. At times, defendant stopped following Bertany’s finger and

shifted his eyes to look elsewhere. The video also showed defendant complied with directions to

stand in certain spots, keep his arms at his sides, and stand facing Bertany.

¶9 Bertany next administered the walk and turn test. Where only two are needed to indicate

impairment, defendant showed five out of eight possible clues, including stepping off the line,

missing heel to toe, making an improper turn, pausing during the test, and taking an improper

number of steps. In the body camera video, Bertany told defendant he needed to listen when he

attempted to perform the test before Bertany had finished giving instructions. Defendant

responded by asking if Bertany spoke Spanish. Bertany said no and stated that defendant spoke

and understood English. Bertany then resumed demonstrating the full test by taking nine heel-to-

3 toe steps forward and back, counting each step out loud. Defendant took at least 12 steps forward

and 12 steps back during the test. Defendant did not turn correctly, paused while performing the

test, and raised his arms in front of himself momentarily.

¶ 10 After demonstrating the one-leg stand test and providing instructions, Bertany asked

defendant if he understood. Defendant replied, “not really.” When asked what he did not

understand, defendant turned to another officer standing nearby and asked if she spoke Spanish.

The assisting officer indicated that she did not speak Spanish. Bertany told defendant that his

English was “pretty good” and pointed out that defendant had understood him throughout their

interaction. Bertany demonstrated the test again and explained that defendant needed to raise his

leg “seis inches off the ground” while counting out loud, which Bertany proceeded to do in

Spanish. Bertany then asked defendant again if he understood and defendant responded

affirmatively. When Bertany asked defendant if he was sure, defendant replied, “Yeah, I have no

good balance.” Defendant attempted the test by lifting one leg with his arms outstretched, but

quickly stopped and said, “No, no balance.” Bertany then asked defendant to submit to a

preliminary breath test. Defendant shook his head and said, “I can’t, I can’t.”

¶ 11 Bertany determined defendant was under the influence of alcohol and unable to safely

operate a motor vehicle based on his driving, observable signs of impairment, admission to

consuming alcohol, and performance on the field sobriety tests. Bertany informed defendant he

was under arrest. Defendant asked Bertany if his friend could take his vehicle and Bertany

explained that the vehicle would be towed. Defendant was transported to the police station,

where he refused to provide a sample for breath analysis testing.

¶ 12 Bertany testified that the assisting officer conducted an inventory search of defendant’s

vehicle after his arrest and discovered a bottle of alcohol behind the driver’s seat. Defense

4 counsel lodged a hearsay objection against Bertany’s testimony regarding the amount of alcohol

the assisting officer told him was left inside the bottle. The court sustained the objection.

¶ 13 Defense counsel moved for a directed verdict, primarily arguing that defendant’s

performance on the field sobriety tests and refusal to submit to breath analysis testing were due

to his inability to fully understand English. The court granted the motion in part and dismissed

the illegal transportation of alcohol charge, stating that the evidence presented by the State was

insufficient to determine whether the bottle found in defendant’s vehicle contained any alcohol.

In denying the motion as to the remaining charges, the court determined defendant demonstrated

that he understood Bertany by appropriately responding to his questions and following his

instructions. The court remarked that defendant was pulled over immediately after his vehicle

went “way over” the shoulder line because Bertany believed “he was putting [the] public at risk.”

The court found that defendant had initially lied to Bertany about his alcohol consumption and

that his failure to complete the one-leg stand test after he had attempted the test amounted to a

valid refusal. The court concluded that defendant did not perform “that bad” on the walk and turn

test but noted that defendant took at least 12 steps forward and 12 steps back despite Bertany

demonstrating the entire test, including counting out each of the 9 steps in both directions. In

addition to moving his head during the HGN test, the court stated that defendant’s eyes shifting

to look elsewhere reflected an inability to concentrate and served as an indicator that defendant

was under the influence of alcohol.

¶ 14 The State then moved to dismiss the charge for driving without a valid license, which the

court granted. Defendant declined to testify and did not present any evidence.

¶ 15 The court found defendant guilty of DUI and improper lane usage and sentenced

defendant to one year of conditional discharge. In rendering its decision, the court noted:

5 “I’m not certain what the law is with regard to implied consent, so I’m—I can’t

say exactly what it is, but there are many, many languages in this world. *** We

don’t always have an interpreter on tap for everyone. But when someone gets a

drivers’ license, there’s an implied consent, and they—they say, listen, this may

not be my first language, but I understand I’ve got to learn what the word yield

means, I have to learn what the word merge means, and I give implied consent,

should there be reasonable suspicion that I might be under the influence of

alcohol, to take these types of tests. And we can’t place the burden on the rest of

the world to learn 500 languages when somebody gets pulled over.

Now, I don’t think the defendant was falling down drunk. I don’t think he

was drunk at all, but the law doesn’t say that he has to be drunk. There’s a

difference between being drunk and being under the influence of alcohol.

Being under the influence of alcohol means that you’re not driving at a

hundred percent or, as the law may put it, at about 95 percent, and that puts

people at risk. And so society has an obligation to try and protect those who aren’t

intoxicated or otherwise innocent from being victims of people who have

consumed alcohol and who are driving unsafely.”

The court determined that even though defendant was not intoxicated, the evidence established

beyond a reasonable doubt that he was under the influence of alcohol and was not driving safely.

Defendant filed a motion to reconsider, which the court denied. The court subsequently

sentenced defendant to one year of conditional discharge.

¶ 16 II. ANALYSIS

6 ¶ 17 On appeal, defendant argues the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to prove that

he was under the influence of alcohol. Where a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the

evidence, the reviewing court must view all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the

prosecution and determine whether “any rational trier of fact could have found the required

elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Village of Lincolnshire v. Olvera, 2025 IL

130775, ¶ 34. It is not our function to retry defendant, and we will not substitute our judgment

for the trier of fact on issues related to the credibility of witnesses or the weight of the evidence.

Id. “A criminal conviction will not be overturned unless the evidence is so unreasonable,

improbable, or unsatisfactory as to justify a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt.” Id.

¶ 18 To sustain a conviction for DUI, the State was required to prove that defendant drove or

was in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. 625 ILCS 5/11-

501(a)(2) (West 2022). A defendant must be intoxicated to a degree that renders him incapable

of driving safely to be considered under the influence of alcohol as an element of the offense.

People v. Groebe, 2019 IL App (1st) 180503, ¶ 57. Intoxication may be established solely

through circumstantial evidence. Id. ¶ 58. “Circumstantial evidence is proof of certain facts and

circumstances from which the fact finder may infer other connected facts which usually and

reasonably follow from the human experience and is not limited to facts that may reasonably

have alternative, innocent explanations.” People v. Diaz, 377 Ill. App. 3d 339, 345 (2007).

Additionally, the credible testimony of an arresting police officer alone is sufficient to sustain a

DUI conviction. People v. Gonzalez, 2025 IL App (4th) 240384, ¶ 28. Relevant factors indicative

of impairment include testimony that a defendant’s breath smelled of an alcoholic beverage or

that he had bloodshot eyes. People v. Morris, 2014 IL App (1st) 130152, ¶ 20. Additionally, any

evidence of alcohol consumption is probative to the issue of impairment and a defendant’s

7 refusal to submit to breath analysis testing is circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt.

Groebe, 2019 IL App (1st) 180503, ¶¶ 58-59. Whether a defendant was intoxicated is a

determination reserved for the trier of fact. Id. ¶ 57.

¶ 19 Here, the evidence established that Bertany observed defendant driving unsafely after he

crossed the center line while completing a turn, drove his vehicle over the shoulder line twice

and passed by a pedestrian at a close distance. Bertany testified defendant had a strong odor of an

alcoholic beverage emanating from him and his eyes were bloodshot. Body camera video

supported Bertany’s testimony that defendant failed his field sobriety tests. Further, defendant

admitted to consuming alcohol and refused to submit to breath analysis testing. This evidence,

when taken together and viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient for

a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was driving while under

the influence of alcohol.

¶ 20 In coming to this conclusion, we reject defendant’s assertion that the court’s finding that

he was not “drunk” undermined his DUI conviction. To find defendant guilty of DUI, the

prosecution needed to prove that defendant was under the influence of alcohol to the extent that

it rendered him incapable of driving safely, not that he was completely incapacitated by alcohol.

See People v. Tatera, 2018 IL App (2d) 160207, ¶ 29. The record reflects that the court correctly

made this distinction by stating that “[t]here’s a difference between being drunk and being under

the influence of alcohol.” Although the court may have muddled its explanation of what it means

to be under the influence of alcohol with a capricious reference to percentages, the court clearly

articulated that the evidence established defendant was under the influence of alcohol to such a

degree that he was incapable of driving safely. Accordingly, defendant’s conviction is not

inconsistent with the court’s findings. See People v. Phillips, 2015 IL App (1st) 131147, ¶ 20

8 (defendant does not need to be drunk to be convicted of DUI, as the State is not required to prove

a high degree of impairment).

¶ 21 Nevertheless, defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to show that he was

under the influence of alcohol because Bertany’s observations alone were not proof of

intoxication where there may have been an alternative explanation. In support of his contention,

defendant cites People v. Togher, 127 Ill. App. 2d 141 (1970) (abstract of opinion), for the

proposition that bloodshot eyes can be attributable to an individual’s normal condition.

Defendant similarly argues, without any specificity, that there may have been other reasons for

his lack of balance when attempting the one-leg stand test. However, there is no evidence in the

record to support any such alternative explanations, and the trier of fact has no obligation “to

seek out all possible explanations consistent with innocence and raise them to a level of

reasonable doubt.” See People v. Castino, 2019 IL App (2d) 170298, ¶ 18. Defendant had the

opportunity at trial to provide evidence to explain his lack of balance and failed to do so.

¶ 22 Defendant further claims that Bertany incorrectly administered the field sobriety tests. In

support of this proposition, defendant cites extensively to the National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration’s (NHTSA) instructor guide containing standard procedures for administering the

tests. However, because the NHTSA guide was not introduced at trial, it is not included in the

record and cannot be considered on appeal. See People v. Simmons, 2019 IL App (1st) 191253,

¶ 16 (a reviewing court cannot consider matters outside the record). Notably, whether a field

sobriety test was properly administered relates to the test’s admissibility. People v. Eagletail,

2014 IL App (1st) 130252, ¶ 39. Defendant does not challenge the admissibility of the tests; he

argues instead that the results were unreliable. Therefore, defendant’s claim attacks the weight of

9 the evidence, which is a factual determination for the trier of fact to resolve. See People v.

Phillips, 2015 IL App (1st) 131147, ¶ 24.

¶ 23 To that end, defendant argues that the results of his field sobriety tests were unreliable

because a language barrier limited his ability to understand Bertany’s instructions. While it was

obvious from the videos that English is not defendant’s first language, the evidence established

that defendant was able to answer Bertany’s questions and attempt the field sobriety tests as

directed. Defendant also responded appropriately by correcting his behavior during the tests

when instructed, if only momentarily, and made affirming statements indicating his

understanding. Based on this evidence, the court reasonably concluded defendant demonstrated

an adequate understanding of Bertany’s instructions and weighed the results of the field sobriety

tests accordingly. Although the court’s comment regarding the impracticality of expecting police

officers to learn “500 languages” was ineloquently stated, it is true that the presence of a

language interpreter during field sobriety testing is not a right required by law because the

interpreter serves to assist the arresting officer in collecting evidence and is not there for the

benefit of the motorist. See People v. Garcia-Gutierrez, 2019 IL App (3d) 180283, ¶ 34.

Moreover, even if we were to disregard the results of defendant’s field sobriety tests, Bertany’s

credible testimony along with defendant’s refusal to provide a breath sample would be sufficient

to sustain defendant’s DUI conviction. See Groebe, 2019 IL App (1st) 180503, ¶ 58; Morris,

2014 IL App (1st) 130152, ¶¶ 21-22.

¶ 24 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 25 The judgment of the circuit court of Du Page County is affirmed.

¶ 26 Affirmed.