People v. Sandoval

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 2nd District Appellate » 2008 » People v. Sandoval

People v. Sandoval

State: Illinois

Court: 2nd District Appellate

Docket No: 2-06-0996, 2-06-1053 Cco

Case Date: 04/01/2008

Preview:Nos. 2--06--0996 & 2--06--1053 cons. Filed: 4-1-08 ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of Du Page County. ) Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) v. ) No. 04--CF--3607 ) JOSE J. SANDOVAL, ) Honorable ) George J. Bakalis, Defendant-Appellee. ) Judge, Presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of Du Page County. ) Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) v. ) No. 03--DT--2937 ) JOSE J. SANDOVAL, ) Honorable ) George J. Bakalis, Defendant-Appellee. ) Judge, Presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE GILLERAN JOHNSON delivered the opinion of the court: The State appeals orders in which all of the charges pending in two cases against the defendant, Jose J. Sandoval, were dismissed for the failure to bring him to trial within 160 days under the speedy trial statute, section 103--5(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/103--5(b) (West 2004)). Sandoval filed a single speedy trial demand, identifying the charges to which the demand was meant to apply as "Du Page DUI," but not providing the docket numbers of

2--06--0996 & 2--06--1053 cons. the cases involving those charges. We determine that Sandoval's speedy trial demand was sufficient under section 3--8--10 of the Unified Code of Corrections (the Code) (730 ILCS 5/3--8--10 (West 2004)) to invoke his statutory and constitutional rights to a speedy trial. However, it was effective only as to the charges named in his demand, namely, the DUI charges. Therefore, the trial court erred in dismissing the other charges against him. I. BACKGROUND On June 14, 2003, in case No. 03--DT--2937, in Du Page County, Sandoval was charged by separate citations with (1) driving under the influence (DUI) (625 ILCS 5/11--501(a)(2) (West 2002)); (2) improper lane usage (625 ILCS 5/11--709 (West 2002)); (3) driving while his license was revoked (625 ILCS 5/6--303 (West 2002)); and (4) DUI (625 ILCS 5/11--501(a)(1) (West 2002)). Sandoval posted bond and was to appear in court on July 11, 2003. He failed to appear, and bench warrants were issued for his arrest. On December 27, 2004, in case No. 04--CF--3607, also in Du Page County, Sandoval was charged by complaint with (1) aggravated DUI (625 ILCS 5/11--501(d)(1)(A) (West 2004)); (2) obstructing justice (720 ILCS 5/31--4(a) (West 2004)); (3) improper lane usage (625 ILCS 5/11--709 (West 2004)); (4) failure to signal (625 ILCS 5/11--804 (West 2004)); and (5) driving while his license was revoked (625 ILCS 5/6--303(a) (West 2004)). The first two counts arose on March 25, 2004, while the remaining counts arose on December 16, 2004. On February 3, 2005, he was indicted on the charge of obstructing justice and on two counts of Class 4 felony DUI (625 ILCS 5/11--501(a)(2), (c--1)(1) (West 2004)). The separate indictments superseded counts I and II of the complaint.

-2-

2--06--0996 & 2--06--1053 cons. In December 2004, Sandoval was incarcerated in a Department of Corrections (Department) facility on other charges. On October 3, 2005, he mailed copies of a pro se speedy trial demand to the State's Attorney in Du Page County and to the Du Page County clerk, using a form provided by the Department. The form, which was titled "Demand for Speedy Trial and/or Quash Warrant," invoked both section 103--5(b) of the speedy trial statute (725 ILCS 5/103--5(b) (West 2004)) and section 3--8--10 of the Code. It included spaces in which the defendant was to supply certain information, including the charges pending against the defendant. At the bottom, the form demanded trial within 160 days "on the above stated charges." In the demand, Sandoval wrote that he was presently incarcerated and serving a 2

Download People v. Sandoval.pdf