¶ 45 We agree with the reasoning and holding in Mayfield, as have several other districts of this court. See People v. Burton, 2022 IL App (1st) 210913-U, ¶ 42; People v. Jones, 2022 IL App (4th) 200638-U, ¶ 41; People v. Weis, 2022 IL App (5th) 210076-U. To hold otherwise would be "to restrict the judiciary from exercising its primary authority over 'the procedural administration of the courts.'"
Shafer, 2020 IL App (4th) 180343, ¶ 60; People v. Jones, 2022 IL App (4th) 200638-U, ¶ 45; People v. Whitmore, 2022 IL App (1st) 211176-U, ¶ 18; People v. Ryan, 2023 IL App (2d) 220414, ¶ 29; People v. Taber, 2023 IL App (2d) 220288, ¶ 34.
Accordingly, we reject defendant's argument." People v. Jones, 2022 IL App (4th) 200638-U, ¶ 41, pet. for leave to appeal pending, No. 128618 (filed June 21, 2022).
¶ 47 We agree with the reasoning and holding of Mayfield, as have other districts of this court, and we follow it here, as well. See People v. Burton, 2022 IL App (1st) 210913-U, ¶ 42, pet. for leave to appeal pending, No. 128910 (Sept. 16, 2022); People v. Jones, 2022 IL App (4th) 200638-U, ¶ 41, pet. for leave to appeal pending, No. 128618 (June 21, 2022); People v. Weis, 2022 IL App (5th) 210076-U, ¶ 84, appeal denied, No. 128469 (Sept. 28, 2022). Defendant correctly points out that the legislature passed various pandemic-related laws, including one that authorized the sale of bottled alcoholic cocktails (see P.A. 101-0631 (eff. Jun. 2, 2020), codified at 235 ILCS 5/6-28.8 (West 2020)), but it failed to authorize the tolling of the Act.
¶ 42 We agree with the reasoning and holding of Mayfield, as have other districts of this court. See People v. Jones, 2022 IL App (4th) 200638-U, ¶ 41 ("We find the reasoning in Mayfield instructive and agree with its holding."); People v. Weis, 2022 IL App (5th) 210076-U, ¶ 84 (agreeing with Mayfield that the "general continuances made pursuant to the Illinois Supreme Court's administrative orders regarding the pandemic have the effect of tolling speedy trial computations"). Defendant cites several cases for the proposition that courts cannot read an exception into a statute that was not included by the legislature, see (e.g., Corbin v. Schroeder, 2021 IL 127052, ¶ 44), but those cases are inapposite as they involve the interpretation of a statutory provision.