People v. Jefferson
| Decision Date | 14 January 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 61993,61993 |
| Citation | 342 N.E.2d 185,35 Ill.App.3d 424 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Orlando JEFFERSON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
James J. Doherty, Public Defender of Cook County, for defendant-appellant (Dennis E. Urban, Donald S. Honchell, Asst. Public Defenders, of counsel).
Bernard Carey, State's Atty., County of Cook, for plaintiff-appellee (Laurence J. Bolon, John T. Theis, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), Richard I. Michael, Graduate Law Clerk, assisted in preparation and research of instant brief.
The defendant, Orlando Jefferson, was charged by indictment with the offense of burglary. In a trial by jury, he was found guilty and sentenced to five years probation contingent that he participate in the Drug Abuse Program. On appeal, the defendant posits that (1) the trial court erred in not granting his petition for substitution of judges and (2) that he was denied effective assistance of counsel as well as the right to a fair and impartial jury when his motion for a continuance for defense preparation purposes was denied.
A review of the record reveals that the defendant was arraigned on August 8, 1974 and, after a public defender was appointed, the cause was assigned to the trial call of Judge James Bailey. When the case was called for trial in the afternoon of that same day, the defendant, insisting upon a speedy trial, answered ready for trial despite his counsel's advice to the contrary. Defense counsel also asked leave to file a motion for discovery and the trial judge ruled that the State must supply such requested information. The commencement of the trial was subsequently continued to the following day.
On August 9, 1974, the defendant was represented by a new public defender, who informed the court that she was not ready to proceed to trial and, subsequent to a conference with the defendant, he was amenable to continuing this cause until such time that she received full and complete discovery. The State thereafter indicated that they were prepared for trial and, in response to the defendant's request, tendered a copy of their lists of witnesses and physical evidence, a bill of particulars, and all police reports concerning this matter. However, when the public defender inquired about the grand jury minutes, the State replied that they did not have such minutes nor the preliminary hearing transcript. Although defense counsel renewed her request for a continuance in light of an absence of full and complete discovery, the trial court denied it and put the trial over until the afternoon of the same day.
When the cause was subsequently called, the defendant filed a petition for substitution of judges on the grounds of prejudice. This petition was denied on the bases that (1) it was not made at the first available opportunity, namely, when the defendant demanded trial on August 8, 1974; and (2) the trial court's prior ruling on the defendant's discovery motion as well as its denial of the defendant's previous request for a continuance precluded the granting of such motion. The court, thereafter, denied defense counsel's requests for a continuance as well as to withdraw from the case for lack of preparation. Moreover, due to her lack of preparation, there was not any defense inquiry to the selection of jurors. The cause was tried under protest and the defendant was found guilty of burglary. The defendant's motion for a new trial was denied, whereupon the court sentenced him to five years probation, contingent that he participate in the Drug Abuse Program due to his addition to heroin for two years.
With regard to whether the denial of the defendant's motion for a continuance on the day set for trial was proper, it is well settled in Illinois, both by legislative enactment (See, Ill.Rev.Stat., 1973, ch. 38, par. 114--4(e)) as well as judicial edict (e.g., People v. Hayes, 52 Ill.2d 170, 175, 287 N.E.2d 465, 467; People v. Hamilton, 17 Ill.App.3d 740, 741, 308 N.E.2d 216, 217) that the granting of a continuance based upon defense counsel's lack of preparation rests within the trial court's discretion, and the denial of such continuance on that ground will not be disturbed on review unless this discretion has been abused. While resolution of whether there has been abuse of discretion in denying a motion for continuance is dependent upon the particular facts and circumstances of each case (People v. Brown, 13 Ill.App.3d 277, 280, 300 N.E.2d 831, 833; People v. Gatheright, 9...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Elder
...449, 350 N.E.2d 135, Cert. denied, Williams v. Illinois, 429 U.S. 1107, 97 S.Ct. 1141, 51 L.Ed.2d 560 and People v. Jefferson (1976), 35 Ill.App.3d 424, 342 N.E.2d 185, the granting of a continuance to allow preparation of a case is largely within the sound judicial discretion of the trial ......
-
People v. Lewis
...well as the extent such a denial hindered the defendant in preparing his defense and prejudiced his rights. See People v. Jefferson (1976), 35 Ill.App.3d 424, 426, 342 N.E.2d 185. Applying these legal tenets to the case at bar, the record clearly establishes that the trial court did not exe......
-
State v. Myers
...(motion for new trial disclosed exculpatory evidence not available to attorney appointed one day before trial); People v. Jefferson, 35 Ill.App.3d 424, 426, 342 N.E.2d 185 (1976) (trial commenced before state had complied with discovery order).The defendant's argument is also weakened by hi......
-
People v. McKay
...was due to administrative misrouting of the disclosure by defense counsel's own office. Both parties rely on People v. Jefferson (1976), 35 Ill.App.3d 424, 342 N.E.2d 185. In Jefferson the court noted that "it is well settled in Illinois * * * that the granting of a continuance based upon d......