People v. Wade
987 N.E.2d 426
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Defendant Aaron Wade was arrested July 24, 2009, observed in two narcotics transactions; charged with Class 1 possession with intent to deliver 1–15 grams heroin and Class X possession with intent to deliver heroin within 1000 feet of a church.
- Bond set at $100,000 on July 25, 2009; defendant remained in custody after arrest; defense demanded trial that day.
- Information filed August 18, 2009; arraigned September 3, 2009; multiple discoveries, plea negotiations, and a fitness examination led to nine additional continuances through April 22, 2010; mutually agreeable trial date set for June 9, 2010.
- Case went to bench trial on June 2, 2011; defendant convicted of Class 1 possession with intent to deliver and sentenced to eight years as a Class X offender due to his background.
- Defendant moved for a new trial; pro se claims of ineffective assistance were heard; on appeal, issues included speedy-trial rights, MSR term, and mittimus correction; court ultimately affirmed conviction and corrected mittimus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speedy-trial violation and counsel effectiveness | Wade breached 120-day clock; State caused delay; counsel ineffective to fail to move to dismiss. | Delay attributable to State; counsel should have moved; delay violated statute. | No speedy-trial violation; defense futile to move; affirmed. |
| MSR term appropriate for Class 1 vs Class X | MSR three-year term proper under Class X sentencing due to background. | MSR should be two years because underlying offense is Class 1. | Three-year MSR term proper; Pullen not controlling; affirmed. |
| Mittimus reflects correct offense | Conviction was for possession with intent to deliver; mittimus should mirror that. | Mittimus inaccurately lists manufacture or delivery. | Mittimus corrected to possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Cordell, 223 Ill. 2d 380 (2006) (defendant must affirmatively object to delay; tolling for delays requires clear objection)
- People v. Peco, 345 Ill. App. 3d 724 (2004) (speedy-trial demands require affirmative action; not automatic on delays)
- People v. Woodrum, 223 Ill. 2d 286 (2006) (agreed continuances toll speedy-trial period; general rule of delay attribution)
- People v. Kliner, 185 Ill. 2d 81 (1998) (agreed continuances generally attributable to defendant)
- People v. LaFaire, 374 Ill. App. 3d 461 (2007) (section 103-5(b) applicability in bail contexts; distinguishes other districts)
- People v. Workman, 368 Ill. App. 3d 778 (2006) (DNA-related continuance exceptional; not broad rule about all trial-date agreements)
- People v. Pullen, 192 Ill. 2d 36 (2000) (MSR/ sentencing interplay; three-year MSR upheld under Class X framework)
- People v. Rutledge, 409 Ill. App. 3d 22 (2011) (three-year MSR term appropriate where Class X sentencing applied)