Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Anderson

September 14, 2001

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
v.
MICHAEL ANDERSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT



Appeal from the Circuit Court of the 10th Judicial Circuit, Peoria County, Illinois No. 99-CF-903 Honorable Joe Vespa, Judge, Presiding

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Justice Holdridge

Released for publication October 30, 2001.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
v.
MICHAEL ANDERSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the 10th Judicial Circuit, Peoria County, Illinois No. 99-CF-903 Honorable Joe Vespa, Judge, Presiding

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Justice Holdridge

PUBLISHED

 The defendant, Michael Anderson, failed to return from work release and was charged with escape (720 ILCS 5/31--6(a) (West 1998)). Following a bench trial, the defendant was found guilty and was sentenced to two years' imprisonment. On appeal, he argues that his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to move to dismiss the charges based on violation of the Speedy Trial Act (725 ILCS 5/103--5 (West 1998)). We affirm.

BACKGROUND

The defendant was serving a sentence for felony unlawful possession of a controlled substance. On June 9, 1999, he failed to return to the Peoria Community Correctional Center from work release. On June 11 or 12, 1999, he was arrested in Cook County on unrelated charges and was transferred to the Vandalia Correctional Center, an Illinois Department of Corrections (DOC) facility, to serve the remainder of his drug sentence.

A warrant issued for his arrest on the escape charge and bond was set in his arrest warrant on September 21, 1999, the same date as he was indicted for this offense. He was not served with this warrant and was not arrested for escape until April 13, 2000, the date he was scheduled to be released from DOC custody on the drug charge. On April 20, 2000, he was arraigned on the escape charge and was appointed counsel by the court.

During June 2000, the defendant filed three pro se "Dismissal" motions. The third pleading, titled "Motion for Dismissal 'Amended,'" consisted of most of the language of the Intrastate Detainers Act (730 ILCS 5/3--8--10 (West 1998)), the statutory citation for this act, and a photocopy of the warrant for the defendant's arrest. This third dismissal motion contained no argumentation accompanying the language of the Intrastate Detainers Act.

On June 26, 2000, the court held a hearing on the defendant's three dismissal motions. At this hearing, the defendant's court-appointed counsel argued that his "Motion for Dismissal 'Amended'" asserted that the defendant had been denied a speedy trial under the Intrastate Detainers Act. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court agreed with the State's argument that the Intrastate Detainers Act placed a burden on the defendant, rather than the State, to "start the ball rolling" toward a speedy trial when the defendant is committed to a DOC facility. Nothing in the record indicates that the defendant had followed the procedures outlined in the Intrastate Detainers Act to "start the ball rolling"--for example, he had not submitted a written demand to the State's Attorney of the county where he was charged. 730 ILCS 5/3--8-10 (West 1998).

Immediately following this hearing, the court held a bench trial in which the defendant was found guilty of escape and was sentenced to two years' imprisonment. It is ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.