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. James A. Brexton

December 28, 2012

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
JAMES A. BREXTON,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



Appeal from the Circuit Court of Stephenson County. No. 09-CF-151 Honorable Michael P. Bald, Judge, Presiding.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Justice Schostok

JUSTICE SCHOSTOK delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

Presiding Justice Burke and Justice Jorgensen concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION

¶ 1 Following a bench trial, defendant, James A. Brexton, was convicted of burglary (720 ILCS 5/19-1(a) (West 2008)), retail theft (720 ILCS 5/16A-3(a) (West 2008)), and theft by emergency exit (720 ILCS 5/16A-3.5 (West 2008)). On appeal, defendant argues that his convictions must be vacated because he was denied his right to a speedy trial. Defendant alternatively argues that his retail theft conviction should be vacated under the one-act, one-crime rule. We agree with defendant's second argument and therefore affirm in part and vacate in part.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 Defendant was arrested on June 11, 2009, the date of the incident. On September 21, 2009, he was charged by amended information with four counts of burglary, two counts of retail theft, and theft by emergency exit. The charges alleged that defendant used an emergency exit to take a television worth over $150 from the Freeport K-Mart.

¶ 4 On October 1, 2009, defense counsel filed a motion to appoint a clinical psychologist to ascertain defendant's sanity at the time of the offense and his fitness to stand trial. The trial court granted the motion the same day. On December 7, 2009, a jury found defendant unfit to stand trial, and he was ordered to undergo treatment.

¶ 5 On February 12, 2010, the trial court found that defendant had been restored to fitness. The following exchange then occurred, which is central to the speedy-trial issue on appeal:

"THE COURT: Now, as I recall, we were trying to keep this on a somewhat expedited schedule in regard to pretrial and trial dates.

Madam Clerk, can we have something hopefully within the range of about a month if we could? Assuming that it fits in the schedules of everyone involved here.

THE CLERK: How about a pretrial March 12 at 9:00 and a jury trial March 15 at 9:00?

THE COURT: Pretrial March 12 at 9:00, and the jury trial March 15 at 9:00. Would that be acceptable, Mr. Peska?

MR. PESKA [Assistant Public Defender]: Those dates are fine, Judge. THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Lentz?

MR. LENTZ [Assistant State's Attorney]: Yes, Judge. That's fine.

THE COURT: Now, at this time we'll also remand the defendant from the Department of Human Services to the Stephenson County jail ...


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.