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. Pettis

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Fourth District

May 31, 2017

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KEVIN P. PETTIS, Defendant-Appellee.

         Appeal from Circuit Court of Champaign County No. 13CF1092 Honorable Heidi N. Ladd, Judge Presiding.

          JUSTICE HOLDER WHITE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Steigmann and Appleton concurred in the judgment and opinion.

          OPINION

          HOLDER WHITE JUSTICE

         ¶ 1 In November 2015, defendant, Kevin P. Pettis, filed a third motion for discharge, alleging a speedy-trial violation. The State, in turn, asserted it had not exceeded the time in which to bring defendant to trial, arguing it had a total of 240 days: (1) the initial 120 days (725 ILCS 5/103-5(a) (West 2012)) plus (2) 120 additional days for the purpose of collecting deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing results (725 ILCS 5/103-5(c) (West 2012)). The trial court granted defendant's motion, and the State filed a certificate of impairment.

         ¶ 2 The State appeals, asserting the trial court erred by granting defendant's third motion for discharge. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

         ¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

         ¶ 4 Because this appeal centers on the issue of a speedy-trial violation, we outline only those facts necessary to resolve this appeal.

         ¶ 5 On July 7, 2013, defendant was arrested and later charged with (1) armed habitual criminal (720 ILCS 5/24-1.7(a) (West 2012)), (2) aggravated unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon (720 ILCS 5/24-1.1(a) (West 2012)), and (3) reckless discharge of a firearm (720 ILCS 5/24-1.5(a) (West 2012)). Defendant remained in custody throughout these proceedings. On July 8, 2013, the State filed a motion to compel defendant to submit a DNA sample, which the trial court granted on July 15, 2013.

         ¶ 6 On September 4, 2013, the State filed a motion for a continuance pursuant to section 103-5(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/103-5(c) (West 2012)), requesting 120 additional days for the Illinois State Police crime laboratory (lab) to complete its processing of defendant's DNA. In its motion, the State asserted it had exercised due diligence in securing defendant's DNA and transporting it to the lab for processing, but the lab had not yet completed its processing. On September 9, 2013, the trial court granted the motion to continue over defendant's objection, finding the State had exercised due diligence in obtaining the DNA results. The case was thereafter continued for a pretrial conference on September 24, 2013.

         ¶ 7 On September 24, 2013, the State filed a second motion to continue, also pursuant to section 103-5(c) of the Code. The trial court, over defendant's objection, granted the motion after finding the State exercised due diligence and scheduled the case for a pretrial conference on October 22, 2013.

         ¶ 8 In the meantime, on October 16, 2013, the lab completed its testing and submitted the results for peer review. If anyone from the State's Attorney's office had inquired about the progress of the testing, a lab technician would have disclosed that the testing had been completed and was pending peer review. At the State's request, the lab technician would have attempted to secure the peer-reviewed results on the same day.

         ¶ 9 On October 22, 2013, the State filed its third motion to continue, again under section 103-5(c) of the Code. The motion does not contain any mention that testing had been completed pending peer review. The same day, the trial court again found the State exercised due diligence and granted the motion over defendant's objection. On October 27, 2013, the lab completed its peer review and it mailed the results to the State on October 28, 2013.

         ¶ 10 On November 19, 2013, defendant filed a motion to continue pursuant to section 114-4 of the Code (725 ILCS 5/114-4 (West 2012)), requesting more time to consult with counsel and to await the results of an independent investigation, which the trial court granted. Thereafter, on December 5, 2013, defendant filed two motions: (1) a motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence and (2) a motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (Franks motion). On February 14, 2014, the court granted defendant's motion to suppress evidence; however, the Franks motion remained pending. The parties then agreed to schedule the case for a pretrial conference on February 18, 2014.

         ¶ 11 At the February 18, 2014, pretrial conference, defendant announced ready for trial, and the trial court scheduled the trial for March 3, 2014. On March 3, 2014, rather than proceeding to trial, the State filed a certificate of impairment and appealed the court's February 14, 2014, ruling on the motion to suppress evidence. This court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded for further proceedings. See People v. Pettis, 2015 IL App (4th) 140176, 32 N.E.3d 744. The mandate from this court was issued on July 23, 2015.

         ¶ 12 Following the July 23, 2015, issuance of the appellate court mandate, on August 11, 2015, the trial court, on its own motion and without the parties present, scheduled the case for a pretrial conference on September 15, 2015. On September 15, 2015, defendant requested a hearing date on the pending Franks motion, which the court scheduled for September 22, 2015. Following the hearing, the court took the matter under advisement and scheduled no further court dates. On October 2, 2015, the court entered a written order denying defendant's motion and thereafter scheduled the case for a pretrial conference on October 20, 2015.

         ¶ 13 On October 20, 2015, the parties scheduled the case for trial on November 2, 2015, the first day of the next trial term. However, on November 2, 2015, the State moved to continue after electing to try an unrelated case. Over defendant's objection, the trial court granted the motion to continue and scheduled the case for trial on November 4, 2015. On November 4, 2015, the State filed a motion to continue pursuant to section 144-4(c)(2) of the Code (725 ILCS 5/114-4(c)(2) (West 2014)) due to witness unavailability. The court granted the motion over defendant's objection and rescheduled the trial for November 16, 2015.

         ¶ 14 On November 9, 2015, defendant filed his third motion for discharge, citing a speedy-trial violation. Following a November 16, 2015, hearing, the trial court granted defendant's motion for discharge. The court determined, once the DNA evidence became available, the State could no longer draw from the additional 120 days granted by the court for the purpose of obtaining DNA testing results. The court found the State's request for a continuance under section 114-4 of the Code from November 4, 2015, until November 16, 2015, resulted in a violation of defendant's statutory speedy-trial rights. The court noted the State could have extended the speedy-trial time by filing their motion under section 103-5(2) of the Code, but the motion filed pursuant to section 114-4(c)(2) did not extend the statutory speedy-trial period. Moreover, the State did not orally represent its intention of seeking an extension pursuant to section 103-5(c) or provide the necessary evidence for the court to make a finding of due diligence that would permit the State an extension of the speedy-trial term.

         ¶ 15 The State filed a certificate of impairment, and ...


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.