From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Williams

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District. Order affirmed
Aug 29, 1991
578 N.E.2d 313 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991)

Opinion

No. 4-91-0310

Opinion filed August 29, 1991.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Sangamon County; the Hon C. Joseph Cavanagh, Judge, presiding.

Donald M. Cadagin, State's Attorney, of Springfield (Kenneth R. Boyle, Robert J. Biderman, and Beth McGann, all of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.

Daniel D. Yuhas and David P. Bergschneider, both of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Springfield, for appellee.


This is an appeal by the State from an order of the circuit court of Sangamon County dismissing the charges pending against defendant Richard L. Williams. Defendant was charged with the unlawful possession of a controlled substance. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 56 1/2, par. 1402(b).) The petition to dismiss filed by defendant on March 27, 1991, alleged a denial of defendant's right to a speedy trial by failing to bring defendant to trial within 120 days of October 28, 1991, the date of defendant's arrest. However, the trial court properly found the appropriate period for assessing a violation of defendant's right to a speedy trial was the 160-day period provided by the intrastate detainer statute (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 38, par. 1003-8-10; People v. Lykes (1984), 124 Ill. App.3d 604, 464 N.E.2d 849) because defendant was incarcerated for a parole violation based on the activity which formed the basis for the criminal charges pending against him in this case. The trial court also found that 170 days had elapsed from the date defendant was arrested to the date of the hearing on the motion to dismiss, April 17, 1991.

On appeal, the only issue raised is whether the trial court erred in dismissing the charges against defendant since he did not make a demand for a speedy trial. No issue is raised on appeal regarding the trial court's calculation of the elapsed time. Defendant counters by arguing that the State has waived the issue concerning the demand for speedy trial by failing to make such an argument in the trial court.

• 1, 2 In any event, we agree with defendant that the State has waived this issue for purposes of review. Waiver applies to the State as well as to criminal defendants ( People v. O'Neal (1984), 104 Ill.2d 399, 472 N.E.2d 441), and the assistant State's Attorney who argued before the trial court discussed the calculation of the 160-day period, but did not mention the failure of defendant to demand a speedy trial.

Accordingly, the order of the circuit court of Sangamon County is affirmed.

Affirmed.

GREEN and STEIGMANN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Williams

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District. Order affirmed
Aug 29, 1991
578 N.E.2d 313 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991)
Case details for

People v. Williams

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RICHARD L…

Court:Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District. Order affirmed

Date published: Aug 29, 1991

Citations

578 N.E.2d 313 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991)
578 N.E.2d 313

Citing Cases

People v. Hillsman

Therefore, because the record is unclear and because the State failed to pursue this issue before the trial…