People v. Bonds
| Decision Date | 21 January 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 38385,38385 |
| Citation | 32 Ill.2d 94,203 N.E.2d 884 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Preston BONDS, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Ronald B. Kaplan, Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State's Atty., Chicago (Fred G. Leach, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Elmer C. Kissane and Thomas A. Hett, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), for defendant in error.
The defendant, Preston Bonds, was indicted and tried for burglary in the criminal court of Cook County. He was found guilty and sentenced to a term of 2 to 4 years in the penitentiary. He now seeks review in this court by writ of error, alleging as the basis for our jurisdiction that he was deprived of his constitutional and statutory right to a speedy trial. Ill.Const.Art. II, sec. 9, S.H.A.; Ill.Rev.Stat.1963, chap. 38, par. 748.
The constitutional right of an accused to a speedy trial is subject to waiver in the event he does not bring the fact of delay to the attention of the trial court by appropriate motion prior to conviction. (People v. Stahl, 26 Ill.2d 403, 186 N.E.2d 349; People v. Sweeney, 409 Ill. 223, 99 N.E.2d 143; People v. Utterback, 385 Ill. 239, 52 N.E.2d 775). It appears from the record in this case that the defendant was represented by appointed counsel at all stages of the proceedings in the trial court. However, there is no indication that the court was in any manner called upon to consider the matter of delay, and, therefore, this question is not open to review in this court. People v. Williams, 28 Ill.2d 280, 192 N.E.2d 356; People v. Walker, 13 Ill.2d 232, 148 N.E.2d 754; People v. Brame, 6 Ill.2d 412, 128 N.E.2d 911.
Since no constitutional question is preserved for our consideration, the cause is transferred to the Appellate Court, First District, for a determination of the nonconstitutional issues raised by the defendant.
Cause transferred.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Hairston
... ... He complains in particular of two continuances granted to the prosecution subsequent to January 29, 1968, which, he states, were given without cause or explanation. While we entertain some doubt that this issue was properly raised in the trial court and preserved for review, (see People v. Bonds, 32 Ill.2d 94, 203 N.E.2d 884,) we have examined the record and find it to be without merit. The right to a speedy trial guaranteed to an accused by the constitution is protection only against delay that is arbitrary, unreasonable and oppressive, (People v. Hamby, 27 Ill.2d 493, 190 N.E.2d 289; ... ...
-
People v. Pearson
... ... The issue before the court in Taylor was not whether the question of speedy trial could be raised in either a preconviction or post-conviction motion, and the court did not hold that it could ... It is interesting to note that People v. Bonds (1965), 32 Ill.2d 94, 203 N.E.2d 884, was an opinion filed on the same day that the opinion in People v. Taylor was filed. In Bonds this court, [88 Ill.2d 219] citing Walker, held that the speedy trial issue was waived where the defendant did not bring the question to the attention of the trial ... ...
- People v. Smith
-
People v. Armes
... ... The claim was therefore waived and will not be considered. People v. Morris, 3 Ill.2d 437, 442, 121 N.E.2d 810.' See also, People v. Bonds, 32 Ill.2d 94, 203 N.E.2d 884 ... Too, it is not within the purpose of the Post-Conviction Hearing Act to have claims considered which could have been presented on a direct review of the conviction. In People v. Doherty, 36 Ill.2d 286, 291, 222 N.E.2d 501, 504, we observed: 'It ... ...