Village of Mundelein v. Bogachev
2011 IL App (2d) 100346
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Defendant Andrey Bogachev was charged with DUI in January 2009 and posted bond, remaining out of custody thereafter.
- On February 20, 2009, Bogachev demanded a speedy trial under 725 ILCS 5/103–5(b).
- From March to May 2009, the court issued continuances on its own motion related to rescission and suppress motions.
- May 22, 2009: rescission granted; trial priority date set for July 17, 2009; July 28, 2009 and September 8, 2009 continuances followed.
- Sept. 29, 2009: Bogachev moved to dismiss for violation of the 160-day speedy-trial limit; the court denied the motion.
- Appellate court held that 103–5(b) governs and that delays caused by the court’s own motions or outside defendant’s control should not be charged to Bogachev; dismissal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Hampton to 103–5(b) | Hampton applies to 103–5(a) and should bind Bogachev. | Cordell/Hampton do not apply to 103–5(b); no duty to object under 103–5(b). | Cordell/Hampton do not apply to 103–5(b); no duty to object. |
| Whether delays were properly attributed | Delays from April 3 and April 24, 2009 were court-related and not Bogachev’s fault. | Only delays outside defendant’s control count; some periods could be attributed to defendant’s actions. | Delays outside defendant’s control were not charged to Bogachev; reversal not warranted. |
| Trial court's computation of the 160-day period | Total non-attributable delay was 179 days, exceeding 160. | Certain periods were not attributable; the clock expired then. | Clock expiration found; record supports dismissal only if delays not attributable were sufficient. |
| Effect of defendant's silence/objection requirement under 103–5(b) | Defendant’s silence after set date should not bar dismissal. | No such objection requirement exists under 103–5(b). | No objection required under 103–5(b); Hampton does not control. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Hampton, 394 Ill. App. 3d 683 (Ill. App. 2009) (applies Cordell to 103–5(a) speedy-trial claims)
- Cordell, 223 Ill. 2d 380 (Illinois Supreme Court 2006) (amendment to 103–5(a); duty to object; not applicable to 103–5(b))
- People v. Healy, 293 Ill. App. 3d 684 (Ill. App. 1997) (pre-amendment context; relied on for fairness notions)
- People v. Ladd, 185 Ill. 2d 602 (Illinois Supreme Court 1999) (delay not attributable to defendant; silent-record principle)
- People v. Erickson, 266 Ill. App. 3d 273 (Ill. App. 1994) (pretrial motion delay attributable to defense cautions)
- People v. Baker, 273 Ill. App. 3d 327 (Ill. App. 1995) (open-ended continuances and preparedness for trial)
- People v. DeCarlis, 88 Ill. App. 3d 634 (Ill. App. 1980) (distinguished; silent-record delays disfavored)