People v. Mosley
56 N.E.3d 1136
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- On July 6, 2012 Bernard Mosley was arrested by Washington Park police for misdemeanor domestic battery while on federal supervised release; his federal supervised release was revoked July 9 and he was taken into federal custody.
- On July 10, 2012 the State filed two felony aggravated-battery counts (deadly-weapon theory and public-place theory); a warrant issued that day but was not served until Mosley was returned to state custody on October 2, 2012.
- Mosley moved for a speedy trial on November 9, 2012; trial began January 8, 2013. The jury convicted him on the public-place aggravated-battery count; he was sentenced February 19, 2013.
- Mosley argued on appeal the trial court violated the 120-day speedy-trial rule (725 ILCS 5/103-5(a)) because 187 days elapsed from his July 6 arrest to trial.
- The State argued the 120-day period did not run while Mosley was in federal custody for the parole revocation and that the period began when he was returned to state custody and arrested on the felony warrant (October 2, 2012).
- The appellate court held Mosley’s federal custody and parole revocation caused the delay or, alternatively, tolled the period; the 120 days therefore ran from October 2, 2012 and Mosley was tried within the statutory period. The conviction was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mosley was denied a statutory speedy trial under 725 ILCS 5/103-5(a) | The State: 120-day period did not begin while Mosley was in federal custody for parole revocation; period began when he was returned to state custody and arrested on the felony warrant | Mosley: The 120-day period began when he was taken into custody on July 6 and the State cannot evade the statute by releasing him to federal authorities | Court: Affirmed for State — either Mosley’s removal to federal custody tolled the period or the period never began on the state felony charge until he was back in state custody; no state attempt to evade obligations |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Zeleny, 396 Ill. App. 3d 917 (speedy-trial statute enforces federal and state constitutional rights)
- People v. Mayo, 198 Ill. 2d 530 (State must bring defendant to trial within statutory period)
- People v. Stanitz, 367 Ill. App. 3d 980 (State cannot evade speedy-trial obligations by surrendering defendant to federal authorities; factual distinction where surrender was proximate to trial date)
- People v. Patterson, 392 Ill. App. 3d 461 (defendant bears burden to show he caused no delay)
- People v. Neumann, 148 Ill. App. 3d 362 (speedy-trial term may not begin until defendant is in state custody when federal custody prevents state prosecution)
- People v. Tetter, 42 Ill. 2d 569 (speedy-trial right is a shield, not a sword)
- People v. Gay, 376 Ill. App. 3d 796 (speedy trial is a substantial fundamental right; plain-error review may apply)