People v. Paulsgrove, 3-88-0032

• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois
• Writing for the Court: HEIPLE
• Citation: 128 Ill.Dec. 111,534 N.E.2d 131,178 Ill.App.3d 1073
• Parties: , 128 Ill.Dec. 111 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert W. PAULSGROVE, Defendant-Appellee.
• Docket Number: No. 3-88-0032,3-88-0032
• Decision Date: 21 December 1988

Page 131

534 N.E.2d 131 178 Ill.App.3d 1073, 128 Ill.Dec. 111 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Robert W. PAULSGROVE, Defendant-Appellee. No. 3-88-0032. Appellate Court of Illinois,
Third District. Dec. 21, 1988.
As Modified Feb. 7, 1989.

[178 Ill.App.3d 1074] Rita Kennedy Mertel, States' Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, Ottawa, Greg McClintock, State's Attorney of Warren County, Monmouth, for the People.

Verlin R. Meinz, Office of the State Appellate Defender, Ottawa, for Robert W. Paulsgrove.

OPINION

Justice HEIPLE delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendant, Robert W. Paulsgrove, was indicted in the circuit court of Warren County on the charge of obstruction of justice. The defendant filed a petition for discharge based on a violation of his statutory right to a speedy trial. The trial court granted the petition and ordered the charge against the defendant dismissed. It is from this order that the State appeals.

On June 2, 1987, the defendant filed a demand for a speedy trial. On July 27, 1987, a bill of indictment was returned charging the [178 Ill.App.3d 1075] defendant with obstruction of justice. The next day notice was sent to defense counsel informing him of the arraignment scheduled for August 5, 1987. The defendant appeared with counsel on August 5 but refused to be arraigned until he was provided with discovery. The defense counsel argued that should the defendant be arraigned that day he would be forced to waive any defects in the indictment or in the indictment process. The State asked the trial court judge to proceed with arraignment or to continue the case on the defendant's motion. On that same day, the trial court judge granted the continuance on the court's own motion.

On August 6, 1987, the defendant filed a motion for discovery. On August 12, 1987, an order was entered granting the defendant's

Page 132

[128 Ill.Dec. 112] motion and giving the State 21 days to provide the defendant with discovery. On August 25, 1987, the State filed a response to the defendant's motion for discovery and the case was set for arraignment on September 16, 1987. On September 9, 1987, the defendant filed a motion for additional discovery which was subsequently granted. On September 16, 1987, the defendant appeared with counsel, pleaded not guilty and demanded a jury trial. On October 26, 1987, the defendant filed a second motion for additional discovery which was also granted. On November 16, 1987, a pre-trial hearing was held and the case was placed on the December 1987 jury trial calendar. On November 19, 1987, the State filed a motion for discovery which was granted. On December 2, 1987, the defendant filed a response to discovery. The next day, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss alleging that more than 160 days had elapsed since he filed his motion for a speedy trial on June 2 (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 38, par. 103-5(b)).

On December 23, 1987, a hearing was held on the defendant's motion to dismiss. The prosecutor argued that the defendant's refusal to be arraigned on August 5 resulted in a continuance of the arraignment until...