People v. Boston
| Decision Date | 19 March 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74--215,74--215 |
| Citation | 327 N.E.2d 40,27 Ill.App.3d 246 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James B. BOSTON and Lloyd M. James, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Herbert J. Lantz, Jr., State's Atty., Chester, for plaintiff-appellant; Charles H. Stegmeyer, Asst. State's Atty., of counsel.
Stephen P. Hurley, Deputy Defender, Office of the State Appellate Defender, Mt. Vernon, for defendants-appellees; Thomas F. Sullivan, Asst. Defender, of counsel.
This is an appeal by the State from an order of the circuit court of Randolph County dismissing the charges against the defendants on the ground that the defendants had been denied their rights to speedy trials. (Ill.Rev.Stat., ch. 38, sec. 103--5.)
The defendants were each charged with offenses in the circuit court of Cook County but were found unfit to stand trial and were committed to the Mental Health Center in Chester, Illinois. It is alleged that on December 13, 1973 the defendants escaped from the Mental Health Center, kidnapped two police officers and forced the officers to accompany them to Carbondale, Illinois. The defendants were subsequently apprehended in Carbondale and were charged by indictment with the offenses of kidnapping, unlawful restraint and aggravated assault. On May 23, 1974 the trial court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the charges in Randolph County because the defendants were not brought to trial within 120 days as required by statute. The State has appealed that order.
We do not reach a consideration of the merits of the State's appeal because we find that there is no basis for our jurisdiction, and the appeal must be dismissed.
After a hearing on the defendants' motions for discharge on May 23, 1974, the trial court stated that the motions would be granted and indicated that a written order would be prepared. The State filed notices of appeal on June 21, 1974. Written orders granting the motions for discharge were not filed until July 10, 1974.
It has been held in several civil cases that if a notice of appeal is filed after the trial court has stated what its decision will be but before a written order is filed, the notice of appeal is not timely and the appellate court has no jurisdiction. (Grissom v. Buckley-Loda Community Unit School Dist. No. 8, 11 Ill.App.3d 55, 296 N.E.2d 624; Davidson Masonry & Restoration, Inc. v. J. L. Wroan & Sons, Inc., 2 Ill.App.3d 524, 275 N.E.2d 654; Belinski v. City Nat. Bank of Centralia, 133 Ill.App.2d 800, 270 N.E.2d 524; Green v. Green, 21 Ill.App.3d 396, 315 N.E.2d 324; Loveless v. Loveless, 3 Ill.App.3d 967, 279 N.E.2d 531.) We realize that some of the cases cited above rely partially upon Supreme Court Rule 272 (Ill.Rev.Stat., ch. 110A, sec. 272), a rule applicable only to civil cases. We find, however, that a similar rule is applicable in criminal cases as well.
In People v. Deaton, 16 Ill.App.3d 748, 306 N.E.2d 695, the State sought to appeal an order of the trial court suppressing evidence. On June 14, 1973 a hearing was held on the defendant's motion to suppress, and the court stated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Toolen, s. 82-274
...this appeal should be dismissed. The rationale of Rule 272 has been employed in several criminal cases. In People v. Boston (1975), 27 Ill.App.3d 246, 327 N.E.2d 40, the trial court orally granted defendants' motions for discharge on speedy A similar result was reached in People v. Deaton (......
-
State v. Gissel
...v. Bowman, 132 Cal.App.Supp.2d 915, 282 P.2d 1042 (1955); State v. Bulgo, 45 Haw. 501, 370 P.2d 480 (Hawaii 1962); People v. Boston, 27 Ill.App.3d 246, 327 N.E.2d 40 (1975), but compare People v. Allen, 71 Ill.2d 378, 16 Ill.Dec. 941, 375 N.E.2d 1283 (1978); State v. Hendel, 468 S.W.2d 664 ......
-
People v. Jones
...on the appellate court. People v. Eddington (1978), 64 Ill.App.3d 650, 654, 21 Ill.Dec. 508, 381 N.E.2d 835; People v. Boston (1975), 27 Ill.App.3d 246, 248, 327 N.E.2d 40; People v. Deaton (1974), 16 Ill.App.3d 748, 749, 306 N.E.2d It is not clear why the November 6 order was entered nunc ......
-
People v. Mennenga
...Ill.Dec. 495, 498, 472 N.E.2d 455, 458), and a rule similar to Rule 272 is applicable in criminal cases. (See People v. Boston (1975), 27 Ill.App.3d 246, 248, 327 N.E.2d 40, 42.) The applicability of Rule 271 in Jones involved an order suppressing evidence and the time of its entry. We note......