People v. McGuire, 4-83-0674
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
| Citation | 79 Ill.Dec. 487,463 N.E.2d 1041,123 Ill.App.3d 908 |
| Docket Number | No. 4-83-0674,4-83-0674 |
| Parties | , 79 Ill.Dec. 487 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard McGUIRE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 10 May 1984 |
Page 1041
v.
Richard McGUIRE, Defendant-Appellant.
Fourth District.
Rehearing Denied June 8, 1984.
[123 Ill.App.3d 909]
Page 1042
[79 Ill.Dec. 488] Daniel D. Yuhas, Deputy State Appellate Defender, David Bergschneider, Asst. State Appellate Defender, Springfield, for defendant-appellant.Thomas J. Difanis, State's Atty., Urbana, Robert J. Biderman, Deputy Director, State's Attys. Appellate Service Com'n, Rebecca L. White, Staff Atty., Springfield, for plaintiff-appellee.
MILLS, Presiding Justice:
Residential burglary and misdemeanor theft.
Bench trial.
Concurrent sentences of 6 years and 364 days.
He now appeals.
The sole issue: Did the court err in refusing to discharge him even though he was incarcerated for more than 120 days prior to his trial?
No.
We affirm.
Section 103-5(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 38, par. 103-5(a)) provides:
"Every person in custody in this State for an alleged offense shall be tried by the court having jurisdiction within 120 days from the date he was taken into custody unless delay is occasioned by the defendant."
And section 103-5(d) then provides:
"Every person not tried in accordance with subsection (a) * * * of this Section shall be discharged from custody or released from the obligations of his bail or recognizance." Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 38, par. 103-5(d).
McGuire was arrested on May 9, 1983, and tried on September 12, 1983, the intervening period being 126 days. He moved for discharge on September 8, 1983. The trial court denied the motion, holding that a continuance granted at the request of his newly appointed attorney tolled the running of the statutory period. We agree.
Since the entire case rises or falls on the nature of a continuance granted the defendant, a rather extensive explication of the circumstances[123 Ill.App.3d 910] is warranted. McGuire and two codefendants were arrested on May 9, indicted by a grand jury on May 19, and arraigned on May 20, the record showing them represented by Bruce Ratcliff. (The record does not reflect whether Ratcliff was retained or appointed counsel.) The record does show that the cause was set for a criminal docket call on July 8. By at least June 1 the record shows defendants being represented by the public defender's office of Champaign County. Following the arraignment, discovery was had and both sides appeared at the July 8 docket call. Both sides answered ready for trial and the cause was set for July 18.
From this point forth, the plot takes some bizarre twists.
After answering ready for trial on July 8, the public defender appeared in court on July 13. A hearing was held, the subject of which was a motion to withdraw as counsel for McGuire and one of his codefendants. The public defender, Mr. Paddish, stated for the record:
"[T]he thrust of my motion is that after getting this case and receiving discovery from this date and after speaking with Mr. Duckworth and Mr. McGuire and Mr. Williams, I have arrived at a conclusion that a conflict exists between Mr. Duckworth, Mr. McGuire, and Mr. Williams on the other side, so it will be Mr. Duckworth and Mr. McGuire having a potential conflict with Mr. Williams and that conflict--I have reached the conclusion that a conflict exists based on the discovery and the information supplied to me by Mr. Williams, and on that basis I would ask leave to withdraw as to either
Page 1043
[79 Ill.Dec. 489] Mr. Duckworth, McGuire, or Mr. Williams, and for appointment of counsel for each."In response to questions from the court, Paddish expressed his opinion that he could best represent Williams...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Bowman, 68539
...609, 536 N.E.2d 449 (citing People v. Roberts (1985), 133 Ill.App.3d 731, 88 Ill.Dec. 773, 479 N.E.2d 386; People v. McGuire (1984), 123 Ill.App.3d 908, 79 Ill.Dec. 487, 463 N.E.2d 1041; People v. Keagbine (1979), 77 Ill.App.3d 1039, 33 Ill.Dec. 617, 396 N.E.2d Applying the cited precedent ......
-
People v. Harris, 81-3064
...of the opinion that such a term is required to protect the public from further criminal conduct by the defendant, the basis for which [123 Ill.App.3d 908] the court shall set forth in the In sentencing the defendant the trial court noted that defendant had been convicted of burglary in Mary......
-
People v. Bowman, 3-88-0197
...was made under circumstances from which it may be inferred that the defendant acquiesced in the delay (People v. McGuire (1984), 123 Ill.App.3d 908, 79 Ill.Dec. 487, 463 N.E.2d 1041). Since the trial court is in a better position to determine whether the defendant acquiesced in the delay, a......
-
Marriage of Brand, In re, 4-83-0443
...until the filing of the written order on March 9, 1983, which covered all the ancillary matters including the custody issue Page 1041 [79 Ill.Dec. 487] upon which the court made the earlier in-court pronouncement. The written order eventually entered was very comprehensive and contained 25 ......