People v. Wigman
979 N.E.2d 583
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Defendant James Wigman was convicted by bench trial of DUI and improper lane usage in Kendall County.
- He challenged the statutory right to a speedy trial, arguing a delay after a November 21, 2008 demand violated 725 ILCS 5/103-5(b).
- Wigman was in Will County custody on unrelated charges during parts of the Kendall County proceedings, with writs to transfer custody and multiple delays.
- A March 6, 2008 warrant for failure to appear existed in Kendall County, later quashed in December 2008, while Wigman remained in Will County custody.
- Wigman filed a Speedy Trial Demand in November 2008; he was later in Will County custody and then Kendall County writs moved proceedings repeatedly.
- The appellate court held Wigman did not preserve a valid speedy-trial demand and that there was no plain error or ineffective assistance in not raising the issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wigman preserved the speedy-trial issue for review | People contends Wigman forfeited under 114-1(b). | Wigman argues plain error or ineffective assistance. | Waived; no reversible error found. |
| Whether Wigman was in custody or on bail for purposes of section 103-5(b) when he filed the demand | Will County custody controls custody status for this case; defendant was in Will County. | Simultaneous custody in Will and Kendall counties applied; on bail while demand filed. | Sustained custody status as Will County; demand premature and ineffective. |
| Whether the delay from Wigman’s January 5, 2010 appearance to April 29, 2010 violated speedy-trial rights | Delays attributable to the defense or state affect the speedy-trial period. | Delay should not be attributed to Wigman; constructive notice concerns cited. | No violation; waivers and credit resolved in favor of state. |
| Whether trial counsel’s failure to move for discharge constituted ineffective assistance | Counsel should have timely moved for discharge if speedy-trial violated. | No remedy because no lawful speedy-trial violation existed. | No ineffective assistance; no lawful basis established. |
| Whether the court correctly awarded credit for time served under 5-8-7(b) given custody status | Credit issues tied to custody and bail status. | Credit determination should be adjusted to reflect true custody status. | Credit for time served affirmed; orderly treatment under Wiseman analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Wiseman, 195 Ill. App. 3d 1062 (1990) (custody determinations and speed-trial demands across concurrent prosecutions)
- People v. Parsons, 48 Ill. App. 3d 618 (1977) (speedy-trial demands and delays in custody contexts)
- People v. Exson, 384 Ill. App. 3d 794 (2008) (extension of 120-day rule for certain witnesses; intra-branch applicability)
- People v. Sandoval, 381 Ill. App. 3d 142 (2004) (intrastate detainer considerations and speedy-trial timing)
- People v. Patterson, 392 Ill. App. 3d 461 (2009) (waiver of speedy-trial demand upon defendant’s failure to appear)
- People v. Wentlent, 109 Ill. App. 3d 291 (1982) (dual-county custody and interruption of speedy-trial term upon arrest warrants)