People v. Minor
2011 IL App (1st) 101097
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Mary Minor was charged with DUI in Cook County; arrest followed by release on own recognizance with $3,000 bail.
- Minor filed a speedy-trial demand on April 21, 2009; the case was set for trial on June 5, 2009 and again a speedy-trial demand was filed on that date.
- On August 4, 2009 Minor failed to appear; a bond forfeiture warrant was issued and later recalled after she appeared on August 5, 2009.
- The case was continued to October 19, 2009, after Minor’s appearance and counsel’s efforts to contact her.
- Minor filed a new speedy-trial demand on October 19, 2009; the case was continued to January 6, 2010.
- In January 2010 Minor moved to dismiss alleging a 183-day speedy-trial violation; the trial court dismissed, then reversed, and ultimately dismissed.
- The appellate court reversed the trial court, holding Minor did not have a speedy-trial violation and remanded to reinstate the charges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Minor waive her initial speedy-trial demand by failing to appear on Aug. 4, 2009? | State: waiver occurred, restarting period on Oct. 19, 2009. | Minor: period tolled from Aug. 4 to Oct. 19, 2009; new demand tolls later. | No; waiver occurred, triggering new period from Oct. 19, 2009. |
| What effect does 725 ILCS 5/103-5(f) have on the speedy-trial term when the defendant fails to appear? | Waiver under (b) governs; (f) does not toll when there is a waiver. | If tolled under (f), the period would pause and resume later. | Statute unambiguously distinguishes waiver; period not tolled. |
| Is the 183-day limit satisfied when the new demand is filed after an absence and waiver? | New period began Oct. 19, 2009, making Jan. 6, 2010 within 160-day window. | Total time including prior demands should toll or tolling may affect timing. | New period began Oct. 19, 2009; no violation as of Jan. 6, 2010. |
| Do Zakarauskas and Patterson govern whether an explained absence can toll or waive? | Zakarauskas supports waiver when defendant misses appearance. | Patterson emphasizes waiver where defendant fails to appear; explained vs unexplained not controlling. | Zakarauskas distinguishing explained vs unexplained not controlling; waiver applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Cordell, 223 Ill. 2d 380 (2006) (statutory interpretation of speedy-trial provisions; right to speedy trial incorporated)
- People v. Zakarauskas, 398 Ill. App. 3d 451 (2010) (waiver of speedy-trial term; defendant’s failure to appear as waiver under (b))
- People v. Patterson, 392 Ill. App. 3d 461 (2009) (waiver upon failure to appear; timing considerations under (f))
- In re Jessica M., 399 Ill. App. 3d 730 (2010) (statutory interpretation; reading statute as whole; amendments presumed to change law)
- People v. Craig, 403 Ill. App. 3d 762 (2010) (interpretation of amendments to speedy-trial statute)
- People v. Wooddell, 219 Ill. 2d 166 (2006) (plain meaning and application of statute in speedy-trial context)