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.

The People of the State of Illinois v. Lashawn Satisfield

October 1, 2012

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
LASHAWN SATISFIELD,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lake County. No. 09-DT-3362 Honorable George D. Strickland, Judge, Presiding.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Justice Birkett

JUSTICE BIRKETT delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices McLaren and Hutchinson concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION

¶ 1 Following a stipulated bench trial, defendant, Lashawn Satisfield, was found guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol (625 ILCS 5/11-501(a) (West 2008)). On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in striking his speedy-trial demand. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

¶ 2 BACKGROUND

¶ 3 Defendant was charged with two counts of driving under the influence of alcohol (625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(1), (a)(2) (West 2008)). On January 7, 2010, he filed a speedy-trial demand, but failed to appear in court on February 10, 2010. As a result, the trial court entered a bond forfeiture warrant for defendant's arrest and ordered him to appear in court on March 17, 2010.

¶ 4 On March 2, 2010, defendant filed a second speedy-trial demand, this time while incarcerated in the Department of Corrections' Lawrence Correctional Center on a separate offense. At the March 17, 2010, hearing, the State moved to strike defendant's second demand on the basis that defendant failed to send a copy of the demand to the chief administrative officer of Lawrence Correctional Center, as required by section 3-8-10 of the Unified Code of Corrections (Code) (730 ILCS 5/3-8-10 (West 2010)). Defendant did not appear on that date.

¶ 5 Following a subsequent hearing on the matter, the trial court granted the State's motion and struck defendant's second demand. The oral motion to reconsider made by defendant shortly thereafter was denied.

¶ 6 On May 26, 2010, the trial court entered judgment on the bond forfeiture.

¶ 7 Defendant filed a third speedy-trial demand on August 10, 2010, and the case proceeded to a stipulated bench trial on November 29, 2010, after which the trial court found defendant guilty and sentenced him to one year of court supervision. Following an unsuccessful motion for a new trial, defendant brought this timely appeal.

¶ 8 ANALYSIS

¶ 9 On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in granting the State's motion to strike his second speedy-trial demand. According to defendant, because the State was aware of his incarceration at Lawrence Correctional Center, his failure to send a copy of his second speedy-trial demand to the chief administrative officer was not fatal to his demand. We disagree.

¶ 10 Section 3-8-10 of the Code provides that the speedy-trial rights afforded defendants under sections 103-5(b), (c), and (e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/103-5(b), (c), (e) (West 2010)) shall apply to people committed to the Department of Corrections. 730 ILCS 5/3-8- 10 (West 2010). Section 3-8-10 requires, however, that a defendant file a demand that includes the following:

"a statement of the place of present commitment, the term, and length of the remaining term, the charges pending against him or her to be tried and the county of the charges, and the demand shall be addressed to the state's attorney of the county where he or she is charged with a copy to the clerk of that court and a copy to the chief administrative officer of the Department of ...


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.