People v. Bauman
981 N.E.2d 1149
Ill. App. Ct.
2012

Background

  • Bauman was charged with DUI and related offenses and released on bond with a condition to appear in court as scheduled.
  • Bauman filed a Speedy Trial Demand on April 26, 2010 and served the State; a subpoena duces tecum followed.
  • The State issued subpoenas and sought status dates for subpoenas, culminating in a July 9, 2010 status on a subpoena return date.
  • Bauman appeared with counsel for status on one subpoena, but did not personally appear on July 9, 2010; counsel noted a speedy-trial demand remained in effect.
  • The trial court found Bauman waived his speedy-trial demand under section 103-5(b) by failing to appear, citing Zakarauskas.
  • Bauman was later tried by stipulation and convicted of DUI, after which he challenged the waiver ruling as a speedy-trial violation.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Did Bauman waive his speedy-trial demand by not appearing? People argues failure to appear on a court date set by the court. Bauman argues the date was not set by the court and no waiver occurred. No waiver; date was not set by the court.
Does a status date on a subpoena count as a court-set date for waiver purposes? State claims any such date triggers waiver under 103-5(b). Bauman contends it was not a court date and thus not a waiver. Status date on subpoena is not a court-set date; no waiver.
If there is no waiver, did Bauman's absence cause delay tolling the 160-day period? Any absence delays proceedings, tolling the speedy-trial period. Absence on a subpoena status date did not cause delay and was not a court date. Bauman’s absence did not cause delay; no tolling.

Key Cases Cited

Read the full case