People v. Sitkowski

SUPREME COURT CASES

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

People v. Sitkowski

State: Illinois

Court: 2nd District Appellate

Docket No: 2-07-0305 Rel

Case Date: 06/09/2008

Preview:No. 2--07--0305 Filed: 6-9-08 ______________________________________________________________________________ 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. 06--CF--1301 ) CHARLES M. SITKOWSKI, ) Honorable ) Perry R. Thompson, Defendant-Appellee. ) Judge, Presiding. ________________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE HUTCHINSON delivered the opinion of the court: The State appeals the trial court's order in which a charge against Charles M. Sitkowski was dismissed for violation of his speedy-trial right under section 3--8--10 of the Unified Code of Corrections (Unified Code) (the intrastate detainers statute) (730 ILCS 5/3--8--10 (West 2004)). The State argues that Sitkowski's speedy-trial demand was not effective after he was released from incarceration. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND On October 3, 2003, Sitkowski was arrested in Du Page County for driving while his license was revoked (625 ILCS 5/6--303(a) (West 2002)). Sitkowski failed to appear in court, a judgment was entered forfeiting his bond, and a bench warrant was issued. On December 16, 2004, Sitkowski was arrested under the warrant. He posted bond and then failed to appear for his March 14, 2005,

No. 2--07--0305 court date. Another judgment was entered forfeiting his bond, and another bench warrant was issued. On June 3, 2005, Sitkowski was arrested in another county on a separate charge of driving while his license was revoked. For unknown reasons, he was not served with the Du Page County warrant. Sitkowski was convicted and sentenced to two years' incarceration in a Department of Corrections (DOC) facility. On October 14, 2005, while he was incarcerated, Sitkowski filed a speedy-trial demand in the present case, under the intrastate detainers statute. Although the speedytrial demand does not appear in the record on appeal, the State does not dispute that a speedy-trial demand was mailed on October 14, 2005. On December 2, 2005, Sitkowski was released from incarceration on mandatory supervised release. Sitkowski still was not served with the Du Page County warrant and, on March 20, 2006, the State dismissed the charge by nolle prosequi. On May 2, 2006, Sitkowski was indicted in Du Page County for aggravated driving while his license was revoked (625 ILCS 5/6--303(a), (d) (West 2002)), based on the same facts as the initial charge. The State did not serve Sitkowski until November 20, 2006. That same day, Sitkowski made a second speedy-trial demand. He was arraigned on December 18, 2006, and on January 25, 2007, he moved to dismiss the charge for failure to bring him to trial within the statutory speedy-trial period. A hearing was held and the State argued that the speedy-trial period was tolled after Sitkowski was released from incarceration. The trial court observed that the State failed to provide a reason for why Sitkowski was not served until November 2006. The court also observed that

-2-

No. 2--07--0305 Sitkowski was on supervised release and that the State should have been able to locate him. The court determined that the time was not tolled and it dismissed the indictment. The State appeals. II. ANALYSIS The sole issue on appeal is whether Sitkowski's release from incarceration tolled the speedytrial period. The State argues that, once Sitkowski was released, he was no longer subject to the intrastate detainers statute. Thus, the State contends that, until Sitkowski made a new demand under section 103--5(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/103--5(b) (West 2006)), the time was tolled. Sitkowski argues that his demand under the intrastate detainers statute was effective and that the speedy-trial period was not tolled during the time between his release and the dismissal by nolle prosequi because he was on mandatory supervised release, which is a DOC program. The parties do not dispute that the speedy-trial period was tolled during the time between the dismissal and when the charges were refiled. "The right to a speedy trial is guaranteed by the Federal and Illinois Constitutions (U.S. Const., amends. VI, XIV; Ill. Const. 1970, art. I,

Download People v. Sitkowski.pdf