People v. Cichanski
| Decision Date | 11 March 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-233,79-233 |
| Parties | , 37 Ill.Dec. 222 PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alan C. CICHANSKI, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
J. Michael Fitzsimmons, State's Atty., Robert L. Thompson, Asst. State's Atty., Wheaton, for plaintiff-appellant.
John W. Werner, Oak Brook, for defendant-appellee.
Defendant, Alan C. Cichanski, was charged with four traffic offenses, including driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 951/2, par. 11-501) and disobeying a red light (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 951/2, par. 11-306). Defendant was discharged on these two counts because the State failed to bring him to trial within 160 days of his demand as is required by statute. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 38, par. 103-5(b).) The State appeals that judgment, asserting any delay in the prosecution of these charges was attributable to defendant. We affirm the ruling of the trial court.
The chronology of relevant events is as follows:
June 10, 1978 defendant charged with three offenses
July 27, 1978 speedy trial demand filed; trial set for August 4
August 4, 1978 trial set for November 14
November 6, 1978 a fourth charge consolidated with original three; continued to November 14
November 13, 1978 defendant filed motions for hearing on November 14
November 14, 1978 all defense motions denied; trial reset to December 12 due to lack of available jurors
November 28, 1978 defendant filed renewed motions and motions for list of witnesses, production of confession; for hearing on November 30
November 30, 1978 discovery granted; hearing set December 8 on motion to suppress evidence; defense counsel advised of this by State's Attorney by telephone
December 8, 1978 defense counsel did not appear due to scheduling conflict; hearing continued to December 12
December 12, 1978 motion to suppress denied after hearing; trial set for March 7, 1979
February 28, 1979 motion to dismiss two charges filed.
Absent actual delay of trial attributable to defendant (People v. Nunnery (1973), 54 Ill.2d 372, 297 N.E.2d 129), January 3, 1979, was the last day of the 160-day term which commenced with his demand on July 27 for a speedy trial.
The record before us does not demonstrate delay attributable to defendant through November 30, 1978. He filed numerous motions on November 13, the day before the originally scheduled trial date, but these were all disposed of by the trial court on November 14; the parties were then prepared to proceed with trial on that date but a delay from November 14 until December 12 was necessitated by a lack of available jurors, not by the hearing of defendant's motions.
Defendant then filed further motions on November 28, for hearing on November 30. On the latter date the trial court granted his discovery motions and set December 8 for a hearing of his motion to suppress, while ordering that the December 12 date remain firm for the jury trial. Defendant's filing of motions therefore caused no actual delay of trial.
We turn our attention then to December 8, 1978, when defendant's attorney failed to appear for hearing of his motion to suppress evidence. Defendant's attorney had been advised by telephone on November 30 that the hearing was set for December 8, but he failed to appear because on that day he was involved in other court proceedings relating to a different case. Where a delay in trial is occasioned because the accused's counsel is engaged elsewhere, the delay is properly charged to the accused. (People v. Hairston (1970), 46 Ill.2d 348, 263 N.E.2d 840.) Any delay of trial which may have been caused by defense counsel's failure to appear for the December 8 hearing would, therefore, be charged to defendant.
The record of proceedings on December 12 discloses that upon conclusion of the hearing defendant's suppression motion was denied and the following colloquy occurred between court and counsel:
"THE COURT: * * * How does your calendar look for Wednesday, March 7th for trail (sic), sir? That's a Wednesday.
MR. WERNER (Defense Counsel): I'm sorry your Honor.
The record does not disclose why the trial did not proceed as scheduled on December 12 following the hearing of the motion to suppress evidence. Conjecture might suggest that the delay necessary to hear defendant's motion left insufficient time to commence trial on that day; if so, it would be attributable to defendant whose attorney had caused the postponement of the December 8 hearing by failing to appear. It is also possible that by agreement of the State and defendant they chose not to proceed with the trial at that time. The record, however, is silent as to these matters and we may not so speculate.
The record does establish, however, that the trial court suggested March 7 as the next trial date and when defendant's attorney said he believed it would be satisfactory the court set the cases for that time, well beyond the 160-day term.
In considering whether delay of trial has been "occasioned by the defendant" so as to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Wigman
...that the delay from January 22, 2010, through April 29, 2010, should not be attributed to defendant. In People v. Cichanski, 81 Ill.App.3d 619, 37 Ill.Dec. 222, 401 N.E.2d 1315 (1980), at a hearing on December 12, 1978, the trial court suggested a trial date of March 7, 1979, with the defen......
-
People v. Miles, 87-0123
... ... (People v. Hairston (1970), 46 Ill.2d 348, 354, 263 N.E.2d 840, cert. denied (1971), 402 U.S. 972, 91 S.Ct. 1658, 29 L.Ed.2d 136; People v. Logan (1983), 117 Ill.App.3d [176 Ill.App.3d 775] 753, 757-58, 73 Ill.Dec. 182, 453 N.E.2d 1317; People v. Cichanski (1980), 81 Ill.App.3d 619, 621, 37 Ill.Dec. 222, 401 N.E.2d 1315.) Moreover, that delay occurred "within" 21 days of the end of the period within which defendant was required to be tried as that term is used in section 103-5(f) ... The last day of the term viz., November 15, ... ...
-
People v. Sojak
...872.) In Reimolds, the supreme court cited two cases in support of the above holding. In the first case, People v. Cichanski (1980), 81 Ill.App.3d 619, 37 Ill.Dec. 222, 401 N.E.2d 1315, the circuit court set defendant's discovery and suppression motions for a hearing on December 8, 1978 and......
-
People v. Reimolds
... ... Yates (1974), 17 Ill.App.3d 765, 766, 308 N.E.2d 679.) Furthermore, mere silence on the part of the defendant or failure to object to the State's request for a delay does not amount to an agreement or waiver of the right to a speedy trial by the defendant. People v. Cichanski (1980), 81 Ill.App.3d 619, 622, 37 Ill.Dec. 222, 401 N.E.2d 1315; People v. Burchfield (1978), 62 Ill.App.3d 754, 756, 19 Ill.Dec. 711, 379 N.E.2d 375 ... A court of review must determine the issues before it [92 Ill.2d 107] solely on the basis of the record made in the trial ... ...