People v. Petropoulos
| Decision Date | 25 January 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 39377,39377 |
| Citation | 34 Ill.2d 179,214 N.E.2d 765 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Ruth M. PETROPOULOS, Appellee. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender, Chicago (James J. Doherty and Frederick F. Cohn, Asst. Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant.
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State's Atty., Chicago , for appellee.
The defendant, Ruth M. Petropoulos, was arrested in Cook County on January 15, 1964, for the sale and possession of heroin and was bound over to the grand jury, which returned indictments on May 12, 1964. Before the case was reached for trial the defendant filed her petition for release on the statutory ground that she had not been brought to trial within 120 days from the date on which she was taken into custody. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1963, chap. 38, par. 103-5.) The petition for discharge was allowed by the circuit court of Cook County on May 26, 1964.
The State appealed the discharge to this court, which, on the State's motion, transferred the case to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District. That court determined that the State had the right to appeal from the order discharging defendant; that the delay in trying defendant was occasioned by her and that the petition for discharge should not have been granted; and that the indictments against defendant were sufficient. (People v. Petropoulos, 59 Ill.App.2d 298, 208 N.E.2d 323.) We have granted leave to appeal from this decision.
At the outset we agree with the conclusion of the appellate court that the State was entitled to appeal from the order of the trial court. While that order merely granted the defendant's motion petitioning for discharge, is was in substance and effect a dismissal of the indictments under section 114-1 of the Criminal Code. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1963, chap. 38, par. 114-1(a)(1).) Our Rule 27(4), (Ill.Rev.Stat.1964 Supp., chap. 110, par. 101.27(4),) specifically provides that the State may appeal from an order the substantive effect of which results in dismissing an indictment. See People v. Blanchett, Ill., 212 N.E.2d 97.
We have fully examined the question of the sufficiency of indictments which allege the commission of an offense on a certain date in a certain county in People v. Blanchett, and held such allegations sufficient. We therefore agree with the appellate court that the indictments in this case are sufficient. See also People v. Reed, Ill., 213 N.E.2d 278.
The final issue before us is whether or not defendant was placed on trial in compliance with section 103-5 of the Criminal Code. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1963, chap. 38, par. 103-5.) Section 103-5, implementing the constitutional right to a speedy public trial, provides in part that every person in custody for an alleged offense shall be tried within 120 days from the date he was taken into custody 'unless delay is occasioned by the defendant, by a competency hearing, or by an interlocutory appeal.'
Since it appears that defendant was not placed on trial within 120 days from the time she was taken into custody, she was entitled to discharge, unless the delay was occasioned by her.
We have examined the transcript of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Redmond
...817 (value of stolen property); People v. Ritchie, 36 Ill.2d 392, 397--398, 222 N.E.2d 479 (multiple convictions); People v. Petropoulos, 34 Ill.2d 179, 181, 214 N.E.2d 765 (speedy Defendant's argument relating to section 6 of article VI of the 1970 Constitution is without merit. The plain ......
-
People v. Adams
...or both. People v. Jankowski, 391 Ill. 298, 63 N.E.2d 362; People v. Petropoulos, 59 Ill.App.2d 298, 208 N.E.2d 323, affirmed 34 Ill.2d 179, 214 N.E.2d 765; Cf. Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 82 S.Ct. 1038, 8 L.Ed.2d Parenthetically, we would observe that while, of course, a void i......
-
People v. Heil, 75-132
...as well as the present case. An order, however, dismissing a charge on speedy trial grounds is an appealable order. (People v. Petropoulos, 34 Ill.2d 179, 214 N.E.2d 765.) Under Supreme Court Rule 604(a) (Ill.Rev.Stat.1975, ch. 110A, par. 604(a)) the State has a right to appeal from such an......
-
People v. Love
...the substantive effect of which resulted in the dismissal of an indictment, information or complaint. This court in People v. Petropoulos, 34 Ill.2d 179, 214 N.E.2d 765, declared that a judgment which discharged an accused because of the State's failure to bring him to trial within 120 days......