People v. Reimolds, 55764
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
| Citation | 65 Ill.Dec. 17,92 Ill.2d 101,440 N.E.2d 872 |
| Docket Number | No. 55764,55764 |
| Parties | , 65 Ill.Dec. 17 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. David B. REIMOLDS, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 17 September 1982 |
Page 872
v.
David B. REIMOLDS, Appellant.
[92 Ill.2d 103]
Page 873
[65 Ill.Dec. 18] Tyrone C. Fahner, Atty. Gen., Michael B. Weinstein, Val Gunnarsson, Asst. Attys. Gen., Springfield, for appellee; Warren T. McNeill, State's Atty., Warren County, Monmouth, of counsel.Craig Collins, Galesburg, of counsel, for appellant.
[92 Ill.2d 104] RYAN, Chief Justice:
This case involves the dismissal of the charge against a defendant for failure to bring the defendant to trial within 160 days as required by section 103-5(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 38, pars. 103-5(b), 114-1(a)(1)).
Section 103-5(b) of the statute provides:
"Every person on bail or recognizance shall be tried by the court having jurisdiction
Page 874
[65 Ill.Dec. 19] within 160 days from the date defendant demands trial unless delay is occasioned by the defendant * * *." (Emphasis added.) (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 38, par. 103-5(b).)The statutory remedy for failure to comply with this requirement is dismissal (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 38, par. 114-1(a)(1)), and the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for a hearing when an issue of fact is presented by the motion to dismiss and the answer of the State. Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 38, par. 114-1(d).
In the instant case, defendant, David B. Reimolds, was charged by information with armed robbery in the circuit court of Warren County on November 13, 1979. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 38, par. 18-2(a).) On November 21, 1979, defendant filed a demand for a speedy trial. On February 6, 1980, a pretrial conference was held at which the State indicated an intention to file a motion to consolidate the instant case with the cases of two other defendants. The court directed that the motion be filed by February 15, 1980. However, the State's motion to join related prosecutions was not filed until March 20, 1980.
On April 15, 1980, defendant Reimolds filed an objection to the proposed joinder of other defendants on the ground, inter alia, that "[j]oining this cause with others for trial may result in delay, not only in actual trial itself, but also in the commencement of the trial." The motion to join related prosecutions was, however, allowed.
On May 19, 1980, defendant Reimolds filed a motion to [92 Ill.2d 105] dismiss on the ground that he had not been brought to trial within 160 days. The motion was accompanied by an affidavit of defendant Reimolds' attorney stating that "[a]t no time since the commencement of [this] cause has the defendant in person or by myself asked for or agreed to a continuance in this cause." A hearing on the motion was held on that day.
On May 21, 1980, the trial court granted the motion to dismiss and in a memorandum opinion concluded:
"In a nutshell, he [defendant Reimolds] demanded a speedy trial, he took no action to delay his trial apparent on the record, he reiterated his concern for a speedy trial with approximately two weeks to run under the 160 day rule, and he did not receive one.
The Motion to Dismiss is accordingly granted."
The State appealed the dismissal, and the appellate court, one justice dissenting, reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to supplement the record. (100 Ill.App.3d 598, 55 Ill.Dec. 860, 426 N.E.2d 1234.) While noting that the record did not reflect any delay attributable to the defendant, the court nonetheless concluded that a question of fact which could not be resolved by the record had been raised by the attorney's affidavit in support of the motion to dismiss and by the oral argument of the assistant State's Attorney.
On appeal to this court, defendant argues that the hearing held on the motion to dismiss provided the State with an adequate opportunity to refute defendant's speedy trial contentions and that remandment for an additional hearing amounts to an unnecessary expenditure of judicial time, talent and energy. In reply, the State argues that, although not reflected in the record, defendant agreed to continue the proceedings. Therefore, according to the State, it is necessary and proper to remand the cause for a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Exson
...cites People v. Battles, 311 Ill.App.3d 991, 997, 244 Ill.Dec. 109, 724 N.E.2d 997 (2000), which in turn cites People v. Reimolds, 92 Ill.2d 101, 106, 65 Ill.Dec. 17, 440 N.E.2d 872 (1982). Those cases acknowledge that the speedy trial statute implements a constitutional right and, as such,......
-
People v. Kliner, 81314
...Ill.Dec. 125, 660 N.E.2d 832 (1995); People v. Turner, 128 Ill.2d 540, 550, 132 Ill.Dec. 390, 539 N.E.2d 1196 (1989); People v. Reimolds, 92 Ill.2d 101, 106, 65 Ill.Dec. 17, 440 N.E.2d 872 (1982). A defense counsel's express agreement to a continuance may be considered an affirmative act co......
-
People v. Hall, 86194.
...that where the record is silent, a delay in trial will not be presumed to be attributable to a defendant. See People v. Reimolds, 92 Ill.2d 101, 106, 65 Ill.Dec. 17, 440 N.E.2d 872 (1982). Here, however, the record is not silent. To the contrary, the record discloses that several continuanc......
-
People v. McDonald, 75608
...the postponement of trial. (People v. Turner (1989), 128 Ill.2d 540, 550, 132 Ill.Dec. 390, 539 N.E.2d 1196; People v. Reimolds (1982), 92 Ill.2d 101, 106, 65 Ill.Dec. 17, 440 N.E.2d 872; People v. Donalson (1976), 64 Ill.2d 536, 541, 1 Ill.Dec. 494, 356 N.E.2d 776; People v. Nunnery (1973)......