Circuit Judge Dan Stack
Presiding Justice Stephen Spomer
One of the few pending cases Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack has on his criminal docket was affirmed unanimously by the Illinois Appellate Court for the Fifth District on Jan. 13.
Almost a year to the day, when Stack gave up working on criminal cases, the appellate court affirmed Stack's decision denying the defendant's post trial motions.
Reginal Welch claimed his conviction for armed robbery was in violation of his right for a speedy trial. He also accused the prosecutor of misconduct and claimed his lawyer failed to raise those questions.
Presiding Justice Spomer wrote the decision for the court stating, "Applying our holding to the facts, the defendant is deemed to be in the custody of Madison County from June 27, 2001, when he was arrested on the Madison County warrant, until June 29, 2001, when St. Clair County filed its charges against the defendant, a period of two days."
"The speedy trial period for Madison County was then tolled from June 29, 2001, until December 10, 2001, the date when St. Clair County reduced the defendant's bond to a recognizance bond and released the defendant to Madison County pursuant to its hold on the defendant."
"From December 11, 2001, until the first trial setting in Madison County on February 4, 2002, a period of 57 days, the defendant was in Madison County custody for purposes of the speedy trial period."
"The record shows that any delay caused by the several continuances following the original trial setting of February 4, 2002, was attributed to the defendant, and the defendant does not argue otherwise on appeal."
"Accordingly, for speedy trial purposes, the defendant was brought to trial 59 days after he was in the custody of Madison County, and there was no violation of the defendant's rights to a speedy trial."
"The defendant also argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the speedy trial issue during the original proceedings. In order to obtain a reversal on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel, a convicted defendant must show that counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that counsel's errors were so serious that they deprived the defendant of a fair trial."
"Because there was no speedy trial violation, the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for trial counsel's failure to object on speedy trial grounds must fail," Spomer wrote.
Justices Thomas and Welch concurred with Spomer.