APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Union County; the Hon. PAUL
D. REESE, Judge, presiding.
MR. JUSTICE EOVALDI DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT:
The defendant was tried on a six-count indictment after a plea of not guilty to all counts. The jury returned a verdict finding the defendant not guilty on Counts IV and V, which charged attempted murder; finding the defendant guilty on Count VI, which charged aggravated battery; and the jury failed to reach a verdict on Count I, which charged rape, and also failed to reach a verdict on Counts II and III, which charged burglary.
After a hearing on mitigation and aggravation, the court sentenced the defendant to the Illinois State Penitentiary for a term of not less than nine years and eleven months and not more than ten years.
Defendant's attorney presents for review the following questions:
1. Did the trial court unduly limit the defense in its examination of the witness, Bill Butterfield, to the prejudice of the defendant?
2. Did the prosecutor violate his duty in the hearing on aggravation and mitigation by offering the confession of the defendant into evidence and by making statements as to alleged crimes of which the defendant had not been convicted?
3. Was the sentence imposed by the trial court upon the conviction of aggravated battery excessive and an abuse of its discretion?
4. Was the sentence imposed by the trial court upon the conviction of aggravated battery with a minimum of nine years and eleven months and a maximum of ten years a true indeterminate sentence?
In addition, the defendant himself by letter asks that the condition be set aside because he was denied the speedy trial required by law.
We will first consider defendant's contention that he was denied a speedy trial. The record shows that the defendant was taken into custody on May 14, 1969, and was not released on bail. On May 29, 1969, the People filed a petition to have defendant declared sexually dangerous. The psychiatric report, filed on August 28, 1969, showed that the defendant was mentally competent, understood the nature of the charges against him, and was able to assist counsel in his defense.
The record also shows that the defendant was arraigned on August 28, 1969, at which time the prosecuting attorney stated that the People would be ready for trial upon one week's notice. Defendant's attorney indicated that he had some motions to file. Upon agreement of both attorneys and of the defendant personally, the case was continued to September 2, 1969.
The record also shows that on September 2, 1969, the defendant moved for a continuance. The motion was granted. On September 29, 1969, the defendant's attorney filed a Motion for Discovery of Confession and for a hearing on the issue of voluntariness. The defendant was present in open court. The state's attorney confessed the motion. The defendant informed the court that he had discharged his lawyer and would have another one within a week. The case was continued to October 6, 1969, on which date the defendant advised the court that he had no attorney and requested the court to appoint one for him. The appointment was made on October 9, 1969. On November 14, 1969, by agreement of counsel the cause was set for trial for December 17, 1969, on which date the trial was commenced. The defendant and his counsel were present throughout the trial. The People and the defendant presented evidence to the jury.
• 1 In view of these events, we conclude that the defendant was granted a speedy trial as required by the Code of Criminal Procedure. Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 38, sec. 103-5, see also, People v. Jenkins, 101 Ill. App.2d 414, 243 N.E.2d 414, 243 N.E.2d 259.
We next consider the question, Did the trial court unduly limit the defense in its examination of the witness, Bill Butterfield, ...