morning honors so may please the court assistant attorney general garson fisher for the people defendants a man for speedy trial in his quote du page dui was not sufficient to demand a speedy trial on multiple dui charges in multiple cases summing from multiple incidents especially where the defendant made this a man from prison where he was serving a valid sentence the plain language of the governing statute is clear and  it demands more from the defendant furthermore the statutory scheme recognizes that there is a diminished liberty interest of the defendant committed to the custody of idea or see it based on a prior valid conviction and this court has made clear that the requirements of section three eight ten are neither technical nor meaningless even if they exist only for the convenience of the state the general assembly had the prerogative to place such a burden on defendants in this current situation the local du page county rule provides guidance to defendants regarding how to comply with this burden and does not place any additional improper burden on defendants beyond those required by the statute the  in this case is only alleged a violation of his statutory speedy trial rights so this is a matter of statutory interpretation and as this court has repeatedly stated the best indication of legislative intent is the plain meaning of the statutes language well it is true that speedy trial statutes are to be liberally construed as this court made clear in garrett courts are still required to effectuate legislative intent and apply the expressed terms of the statutes and here the defendant failed to petitioner demanded a trial on do page dui he had to dui counts which allegedly occurred on june fourteenth two thousand and three pending against him in one case and that aggravated dui charge which allegedly occurred on another date march twenty fifth two thousand  pending in another case defendant's the man failed to identify which of these multiple dui charges in multiple cases stemming from multiple instances of drunk driving current on multiple dates he actually meant to demand trial on is ambiguous it should not be so we believe construed as to tolerate a demand as vague as this one the requirements of section three hundred ten applied to defendants were already serving prison terms for prior convictions and  court recognized such defendants do not suffer a loss of liberty while they are awaiting trial on their pending charges thus the general assembly has seen fit to allow the state longer to try such defendants that it has to try to defendant who is only in custody based on a pending charge and it is also said is a requirement for such defendants but they file a speedy trial demand in order to start their clock and that that demand comply with the additional requirements of section three a ten ounce of the defendant have to demand a would not require the state to try defendants claims in a single trial so a single speedy trial demand on one charge would not constitute a demand on all of the charges the charges in these  cases did not arise from the same act in fact that the drunk the dui charges and the other charges occurred on three separate dates spread out over an eighteen month period and thus even if the defendant's demands were identify the charges against him by listing the case number but there might be situations in cases where a defendant could adequately identify the charges against him by providing other information that he would you know certainly have access system even if it would have allowed the state and whether or not the people actually attempted to use the duct system to identify the defendant in the charges pending against him first i would say you it's immaterial in this case because the statute has clearly unequivocal place the burden on the defendant to identify the charges against him but second i would add your honor that while it may be true that in individual cases it doesn't seem particularly oner ask the state to do some additional research to identify the defendant in the charges pending against him that the general assembly and setting the statute was considering policy for all of the prosecutors across the state and the your first question or yes i think it does shift the burden to the state from the defendant answer to your second question right or no i don't think that is where it belongs i think the statute clearly indicates that the burden is on the defendant to as this co him and then also as this court put in saying even if that decision by the general assembly was made solely for the convenience of the state to treat the requirement as technical or meaningless would infringe on the general assembly's prerogative to set specific conditions on the right to receive speedy trial for defendants who are differently situated and in this case just parties reckon as you're talking about a defendant who has the most minimal liberty interest at also been challenged in this case you page county woking rule thirty point zero six provides guidance to defendants on how to comply with the requirement laid out by the general assembly and section three of ten it does not conflict with that if one were to comply with section three a ten one would necessarily be complying with rule thirty point zero says it all thirty point zero six says that if a demand is that a defendant cement has to include his case unless the state has actual notice of the demand in the interest of justice require recognition of the demand there is no question that a defendant who complies with the first part of thirty zero six includes the case number of the case now the people are trying to use the local rule to deny defendant his speedy trial right rather if the defendant had complied with the rule then he would have complied with the statutes because he failed to comply with the on section three hundred ten tension the second question whether rule thirty point zero six is in some way improper obviously attention to the rule is required and we're merely saying that it doesn't place any additional burden on a criminal defendant  a couple of other points of contention between defendants briefs in the people's grief like to quickly address first the proper standard of review in this case is the novo whether the offender was responsible for delays in this trial is not at issue in the case probably before the court nor is the language of the speedy trial demand that was made the mirror the only question is whether that language constitute a valid speedy trial demand and which of multiple dui charges the found it was demanding a trial but it certainly did not identify an aggravated dui charge or multiple charges inclusively the general assembly places for none defendant situated as the defendant is in this case and even if it did so only for the state's convenience to treat that requirement as meaningless or merely technical with four legislative intent far from imposing any additional burden the local will provided guidance for how the defendant could have complied with the statutory requirements the senate failed to heed the wouk of rules advice and therefore failed to comply with the statutory conditions for making a valid speedy trial demand and for that reason as well as those stated in our briefs that the good morning your honors mr chief justice in may please the court my name is donald ramsey well i represent jose j sand of all i repeat his name because if you were to look at the interstate detainer demand for speedy trial his name in the caption reads jose j sand of all his signature reads jose j sand of all is proof of service reads jose how the air sand of all there was only one jose j sand of all in the entire du page county court system records that is my client jose j sandoval according to the state's own records there were four entries under jose j sand of all to represent of the two thousand and three d don't believe so and the reason for that is because the middle of the inmate number for jose j c and of all which is clearly written on his demand are for four five six seven is easily identified with the date of birth that match is the only jose jase and of all in the computer furthermore the tickets that were attached to or that are in the record here identify the actual full name of the defendant as jose how the air sand of all so even jose j sand of all if there was more than one my client's name on the actual ticket for dui reads jose  the rule that you would want us to said ford is would be a case by case analysis than well frankly there's this is a bit of a fact question i don't of all in the entire dui court system and that system because i happen to have been president of the bar association reflects every charge going backwards in time for jose j sand of all that is contained in their entire duct system which is probably fifteen twenty years old or going backwards i can't necessarily testify to earlier than that but it's see it's a complete system it has failure of notice the fact the ability of the defendant to describe the charges that he that he was faced with and he did we know he to do something about it because he's now know that if you cook county you do page drugs any some part of any kind was sufficient for charging document mike my question was out how does your argument indicate the principal argument which was the notice independent of the totally independent of whether or not the statute it says the nature of the charge in the statute nature of the charge deal why i'm not sure necessarily whether greater specificity is required on the statute certainly the legislature having seen this fact pattern may wish to address whether they wish to have something greater in three dash eight dash ten but u serious they've listed the eight different items to include none of which is the case number itself or the statute violated was rooms on it i believe you make the argument however though in your brief that they could have easily figure this out as to what the church was with a rudimentary search or they could have revealed him right upon receiving the demand and answer to the information that way or it was in that one of your arguments  i wouldn't place it in that phrase your honor i would necessarily say that the argument by the state that suggests they could not determine the case or cases that this applied to is disingenuous not clear and unequivocal my question is if there are if it requires further investigation being rigid or a computer search isn't it by its very nature not clear and unequivocal if it requires something further but i believe that any time the state's attorney receives any piece of paper it requires further investigation of how that piece of paper applies to a case that pleadings or fail to respond to pleadings whether their requests to admit the possibility of a dog default judgment a speedy trial demand if they simply ignore it they bear the fruit of the hardest or worst outcome for them here again we have that same situation a a proper living against who is concerned with the effect of a pleading should appear in court file a motion to strike do what's necessary if you dare to decide to receive it to fall judgement and attempt to collaterally attack it is void of an issue oh if you dare to do disregard a demand for a speedy trial and do nothing you are certainly not able to go to court with with clean hands here whether it's the question of prosecutorial neglect or negligence either way nothing was done they simply ignored it and within the confines of the halls of the state's attorney's office need a unilateral decision evidently that this was a worthless document rather than you know make sure to protect their issues that involve any other burden i mean it's the defendant's deval did whether was intentional or otherwise followed the exact letter of the requirements of the law that he was to proceed under the fact that he had to do you i cases instead of one should necessarily make this an impossible situation again i can only assume the state's attorney's office shows to reject it out of hand certainly that is not in keeping with the the obligation on the part of even the state's attorney to afford a person the right to a speedy trial and to protect the rights of all persons to a speedy trial whether they would want to personally or not they have that obligation to give this constitutional right of a speedy trial to a defendant as much as anyone instead they don't it out of hand the equity certainly doesn't lay in their hands but the defendant fulfilled the terms of three dash eight bush ten i believe there's there can be no doubt of that issue did he make a demand it was clear and unequivocal yes he did it says demand for speedy trial this is not buried in a demand for a jury trial like say staten it was in a demand for a final disposition that was filed with a bunch of papers that belong to a different case such as in mill so that is a clear and unequivocal demand the defendant doesn't have this access to technology that the state does and i recall an opinion written by one of the justices in this court was a unanimous decision people v hanna that we have to look at these laws in the real world in which we live not in applying the practicality of of the world we live in each of these cases that are potentially out but on the issue of what the words mean i mean what they mean is that correct they mean what they mean and if so all we have here really between you and the state is a difference on what you understand the words to me but i believe the state wishes to have the court implant in three days she dash ten the requirement of a case number one it doesn't exist otherwise the the issue if it's blank should be interpreted in favor of the differently my answer to that is clearly that the that the the number itself is not required that's correct and it's not in the statute and he put down the nature of the charge he has all all of the correct citations place of incarceration like the sentence time remaining nature of the charge pending nature dui that's the nature of the charge pending the county the state's attorney the clerk probably the corrections chief administrative officer perhaps the legislature wishes to address this but in the meantime he followed the only law that he knew to follow it would be a guess and this or sandoval's park sitting in the department of corrections to guess that more was required then what the letter of the law stated which is  all he can obeyed to at that point in terms of thirty point zero six the local court rule i believe there is an issue of abuse of discretion standard because two trial courts found that in the interests of justice this demand should be given effect that's a fact question essentially they looked at the singular facts of the case but nevertheless even if that wasn't a fact question thirty point zero six has its own inherent problems it isn't it is an attempt to modify these rights of the defendants it cannot if we were to allow different county  courts to have their own set of rules as to how to effect a speedy trial demand then we would lose all uniformity speedy trial demands do not need to be in writing it is the best way to make a demand but thirty  therefore by either imposing a requirement on the state to bring him to trial on all charges if you're doing something that the defendant does not demand well that's a that is a very interesting question because expect that it is dui and he has ending burglary or other charges in other cases that that's going to include those charges if they were completely separate cases i would agree if they are under are two separate  y educated sense of the term that those three charges that say december of two thousand and four instead of march of two thousand and four clearly somebody wasn't charged with those and within ninety days indicted on the same case numbers march of two thousand and four and on the way the record i wasn't the lawyer down there it's obvious to me those dates are clearly some incorrect citation but the fact that fact issue i think needs to be looked at more deeply i seriously doubt that the defendant was charged with three improper lane usage and and two other matters and within nine days or eleven days was indicted rather than secretary preparing those documents for an indictment with the date she prepared them into the body of the date of offense but that's just me i would submit that the demand filed against a particular case should apply to all the charges that are on file in that particular case it seems to me that is more logical more reasonable more rational and more the way the practice is heard i do not know of a single case where someone has demanded on for example the impaired dui charge but doesn't demand on the course a dui charge which are different acts and perhaps not subject to compose rejoinder as defined by this court or the somebody would demand on the d y but not demand on the improper lane usage that was you know the driving aspect the most simple and i know this is outside of where the body of law is in illinois but i know that this court has from time to time decided to depart from the really us if you will and  render some commonsense tools to you your this court has done so on petitions to revoke and collateral of stoppel and abrogated people versus grayson the court has done so in re returning to the lesser included in the greater including definitions under black berger and here if you make a demand on a file or a case it's called a dui it should apply to all the filed the first office with then attach that which was well in this case the clerk chose to attach it to the old for c f thirty six zero seven again without a subpart against it i don't think the will be the one that effectuate the speedy trial does a person when they have to do you i files or for dui counts have to make four copies of the same item i think then we're getting undu technical again clearly again a unique set of facts but when we have conflicts arising between everyone's interests the state's attorney the clerk the how many pieces of paper holder writing all of that is the right constitutional or statutory to a speedy trial in a pure tie the defendant gets the benefit here is of the very nature of what you're talking about though that the you why singular plural can go both ways doesn't that get back to the fact that isn't it more important if it's going to be clear and unequivocal to indicate which do you watch birds are actually talking about what is helpful and what is mandatory are two different things what is important and what is nan dated by law can be two different things i would certainly agree that mr sands of all if he had access to all of the information that's easily accessible by a prosecutor's office may have been able to do more but whether was mandated or not is a different story and i frankly believe that if he's looking at all knowing what he knew at least which year it was  well since they were there were two different years radio three no were they certainly were but according to the prosecutor they were also two different months in one case i don't think the prosecutors clearly set out where those offenses are honor may well know it doesn't make sense on the face of it that a march two thousand and four set of charges and the december two thousand and four set of charges even exist in the same court file so there are clearly filing issues those aren't the fault of mr santa ball and as we pointed out in our brief there was a great amount of missing paper work filed years later i see the way it is is done so thank you very much honors simply knowing petitioners name whether it was jose jason noble jose javier sent of all doesn't identify the charges pending against him as has been discussed repeatedly there were multiple charges pending against him in multiple cases so  even if the charge identified sufficiently for this case you need the demand they going to fight sufficiently for the state who the defendant was still fail to identify the charges pending against him furthermore the statute places the burden on the defendant to identify those charges which is seeking a speedy trial and so as your honor pointed out just to be clear about what the language of the statute is the statute requires quote a statement of the charges pending against him to be tried there's no reference to the nature of the charges or anything so baby is that it's clear and unambiguous that it requires a statement of the charges pending against him to be tried in a state and pointed out could or should have done the general assembly hasn't placed any additional burden on the people to identify those charges where the defendant has failed to do so and the soundness of the policy considerations if this case were were unclear about what charge this speedy trial demand was meant to refer to as others pointed out the clerk had to make a decision about what case file to attach this charge to and pick one versus the other from without guidance from the defendant the people were not clear that the speedy trial demand referred to any of this defendant's pending charges and even the defendant in this case first filed a motion to dismiss one of his cases based on this speedy trial demand and only after succeeding on that motion went to the other trial court in which is other cases pending and filed a similar motion so it's not clear that even the defendant was clear stage i would certainly be a closer case in this one i don't think so i don't think that identifies the charges pending against him to be tried as required by the saturates so i don't believe that that would be sufficient to satisfy unequivocal as required by the statute for a defendant situated as the one in this case is regarding concerns about a defendant's constitutional rights to speedy trial which the thing to mention briefly during argument there is no claim of a constitutional speedy trial violation in this case and as the general assembly and this court both recognized in writing the statutory scheme and interpret ing it there's no liberty interest at stake for a defendant situated as this one is when he made his speedy trial demand because he was in ideas he custody on a prior valid conviction not based on the pending charges against your honour's have be taken under advisement agenda number one