 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Campa10/1/2004
l or recognizance because he was required to report in person every day. We find it unnecessary to decide this issue. We find that defendant was in custody within the plain meaning of the statute without consideration of the conditions of his custody. Moreover, the value of the speedy-trial statute as a bright- line test would be significantly diminished if trial courts were required to engage in fact-finding regarding the conditions of a defendant's custody before determining whether the 120-day or 160-day limit applied. Although we find some merit to the State's suggestion that the longer period should apply to defendants in a day reporting program, the plain language of the statute does not support that interpretation. Whether such a change in the statute is desirable is a matter for the legislature, and not this court, to decide.
We conclude that defendant was in custody within the meaning of the speedy-trial statute. Because defendant was in custody and he was not tried within 120 days, the trial court erred when it denied his petition for discharge. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the circuit court and vacate defendant's convictions. See People v. Schmidt, 233 Ill.App.3d 512, 517, 174 Ill.Dec. 655, 599 N.E.2d 201 (1992).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is reversed.
Reversed.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Illinois DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|