Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, Fifth Division
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. Nos. TT-025-869, TT-025-870, TT-025-872. Honorable Arthur P. Wheatley, Judge Presiding.
Defendant's convictions for driving with a suspended license, failure to give information, and driving left of center were upheld over her contentions that the trial court erred in denying her motion to dismiss based on a speedy trial violation and that her counsel was ineffective in miscalculating the speedy trial term and failing to file a timely motion to dismiss based on the violation of her right to a speedy trial, since a demand for a speedy trial is waived by a failure to appear on a " court date set by the court," that is, the failure to appear on the date and time set by the court, and defendant's late appearance on the date set by the court constituted a waiver of her speedy trial demand, and under those circumstances, her speedy trial rights were not violated and her counsel could not have been ineffective in failing to file a timely motion based on a violation of her right to a speedy trial.
Michael J. Pelletier, Alan D. Goldberg, and Rachel Moran, State Appellate Defender's Office, Chicago, for appellant.
Anita M. Alvarez, State's Attorney, Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, Tasha-Marie Kelly, and Katerina Alexopoulos, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.
JUSTICE McBRIDE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Gordon and Reyes concurred in the judgment and opinion.
[¶1] Following a bench trial, defendant Doris Galloway was convicted of the misdemeanor offenses of driving with a suspended license and failure to give information in addition to the petty offense of driving left of center. The trial court subsequently sentenced defendant to concurrent terms of 30 days in the Sheriff's Work Alternative Program (SWAP) for the misdemeanor offenses and supervision for the petty offense.
[¶2] Defendant appeals, arguing that: (1) the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds because her late appearance did not constitute a failure to appear; and (2) her trial counsel was ineffective for miscalculating the speedy trial term and failing to file a timely motion to dismiss on that basis.
[¶3] In August 2010, the Chicago police department filed multiple complaints against defendant for failure to report an accident, driving while her license was suspended or revoked, driving to the left of the center, and failing to provide information. On September 28, 2010, defendant had her first court date and filed a written demand for a speedy trial. The case was continued on the State's motion until December 16, 2010. At the December 16, 2010, court date, the State requested a four-week continuance.
[¶4] On January 26, 2011, defendant did not appear at the scheduled court date. The trial court issued a bond forfeiture warrant. Defendant appeared at the next court date, March 8, 2011. Defense counsel moved to vacate the bond forfeiture, which the trial court granted. Defendant also made another written trial demand. On April 13, 2011, the parties appeared for a bench trial, but the State was unable to answer ready because the complaining witness was not present. The case was continued to June 28, 2011. Defendant continued filing her written trial demand.
[¶5] On June 27, 2011, the day before the scheduled trial, defendant advanced the case and requested a continuance because she was to appear as a witness in an unrelated case. The trial court continued the case until August 4, 2011. On that date, the complaining witness was not present in court and the State requested a continuance.
[¶6] On September 20, 2011, the case was called for a bench trial and defendant was not present. The police officer witness was present and the State indicated that the complaining witness was on his way. The case was passed. At 10:50 a.m., the trial court called the case again, but defendant was not present. The case was passed again. Later, the case was called a third time and defendant still was not present. The State answered ready for trial with both witnesses present in court. Defense counsel stated that he attempted to contact her, but did not know where she was. The State asked for a bond forfeiture
warrant to be issued, which the court granted. Later in the afternoon, the case was called a fourth time and defendant was present. Defendant stated that she went to the Skokie court house because she confused her court date with her son's court date. The trial court vacated the bond forfeiture. The case was continued to November 29, 2011, on defendant's motion.
[¶7] On November 29, 2011, the State was unable to answer ready for trial because the complaining witness was not in court. The trial court continued the case until February 23, 2012. Defendant filed another written demand for trial. At the February 23, 2012, court date, the State answered that it was not ready for trial. The case was continued until April 3, 2012.
[¶8] On March 27, 2012, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the charges based on a speedy trial violation. In the motion, defendant argued that April 3, 2012, was the 284th day after her written demand for a speedy trial began on March 8, 2011. Defendant requested that the charges be dismissed because the State failed to bring her to trial within 160 days as required under sections 103-5(a) and (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/103-5(a), (b) (West 2010)).
[¶9] On April 3, 2012, the case was called three times and defendant was not present. The State requested a bond forfeiture and warrant for $5,000. The trial court issued the warrant, but noted that it would change the order if defendant appeared. Defendant was present when the case was called for the fourth time and ...