meet may twenty third season in january twenty sixth two thousand and eleven date your honor our contention would be that no she cannot wait and that is not running and there is this is an issue both of the issues in this case are issues of first reasonable for the state to send their witnesses goal especially when a bank court hears your honor i think it was reasonable for the state here at ten fifty am to send this witness on but it's important that's what we're not arguing that the delay and that's attributable to her and she bears the responsibility for that but that's not a failure to appear for a court date well doesn't yet doesn't your interpretation nor that there was tell us much so what we do know and what i think your honor is getting to the legislature didn't want to punish more severely defendants who do not appear at all all at all what do you mean you just said it last year in something well la all right so the question really is are we doing the first issue about the ineffective assistance or if we go into the second which i it's my preference order anyway but i'm happy to go into the second i think that's what we're talking about  so for a court date set by the court so you're yes in the us to interpret that to mean there is no appointed hour just a day your honor i'm asking you to interpret in accordance with the plain language citation there is more than simply a date there's always an appointed time that's really kind of the way it's always been paraded in civil and criminal matters the question is has the court set a date when it gives this particular day and time to work here yes that in our interpretation the term court date means the day it is scheduled in this case september twentieth two thousand and eleven  not now for this provision it doesn't indicate the work time the state is asking this court to read in a time provision that does not exist well i don't i mean your interpretation is that for any court date set by the court does not include a and it's just in court i noticed notice noted there are other consequences such as even the court's ability to send witnesses home or to allow the state to send its witnesses home this is it's not ok in the sense of the defendant has no consequences at all but it's not within the meaning of this particular drastic the sentence that provides a very drastic consequently dummy's head any delay patient by a defendant which could have easily have the compass the defendant who likes to show up whenever they want so we already have that and i think the legislature did something when they changed the language for any court date set by the court otherwise the says  she demanded trial as soon as she came into court nine twenty eight ten she said i'm demanding trial and it was continued motion stay depended to me and struck out and in december you're saying that the demand the longer existed your honor our position and issue a would be that because on the previous day in december because she had stayed the demand by requesting it by agreement day now that was a by agreement did your honor december was a by agreement and  about different dates but i do have the record in front of me and we have that first motion state for the first appearance september twenty eighth and then we have this continued to twelve sixteen and then i thought well fifteen it does sa ocean state and it was because they didn't have a press report and then on the twenty sixth of january that's when the bomb for it was entered and she didn't come back into court until march on the day so i don't know how we could say that  and no one coming in for another month and a week or so that is just discordant pointed out that wasn't an initial waiver your honor what i would respond to that is i believe if your hon at the transcript of proceedings and the state has agreed with us on this point that it was a by agreement date and december sixteenth two thousand and ten we are speaking about the same date so our position would be and i don't have the record in front of me  believe according to my notes in the state's notes that the transcript would indicate that that was a by agreement so i position would be based on that that she had voluntarily suspended her speedy trial demand that she could the next day because it was not currently running however if this court disagrees with us as to issue a that doesn't even factor into the analysis this issue be because even if we lose all eighty one of those days we were still  day hundred fifty eight by the time she shows appears late for court on september twentieth two thousand and eleven so if the clock doesn't reset on that day then two days later she could have filed or excuse me not two days later because it's a delay attributable to her but the it would mean that every good defense lawyer will come in and at the end of the day see when the state has a really he said there with his home your honor if i may as to the speedy trial act that would actually be a terrible strategy because that would be a constant delay attributable to the defendant so that's not unless the defense lawyer is simply trying to avoid trial altogether which is a different issue than what we have here then the defen lawyer would not be smart at all to wait that long and show up that way because that's a delay tribute to the defendant every time it happens and why is it that the tribute of years it should be attributed here it should be attributed  delay to mr galloway under subsection b of the act it should not be attributed as an entire waiver of that those hundred fifty eight days that it accumulated and i would also point out why is that because she did not fail to appear on the read it does not contain a time provision obviously if she were to continue her own demand she would have to appear on time but there's no indication that the legislature intended to punish equally severely defendants who show up late as defendants who do not come at all and it would make this the i think we have to go back to that prior language that this a defendant who shows up late would fit into the previous  worse the language because the delay the patient by the defendant always included this scenario that we have here sure which is shows up late but you said there's no case that really has any bearing on about nine thirty five in the morning when the defendant was required to appear at night now the court said that in review that the trial judge had not be used his discretion in starting that trial in absentia at nine thirty five so let me hear what your responses because in this case they do consider about  the current in smith and in stubbs which is the other case the state sites for the same proposition they didn't actually ever interpret the meaning of failure to fear for court a court date doesn't appear in the in absentia statute failure to appear  difference is what the court was actually analyzing there is whether the state had made its burden of proving a willful proving a willful absence because that's the big difference between the n f l statute and the speedy trial act is that the state in order to go to trial and defend its absence the state actually has to make it print a fish showing of willful absence and so they don't think that's a little stronger a higher standard that the state had to meet will fulfill your to appear as do it's actually yes it's a protection and i think that's actually a point in our favor that's a protection for the defendant and so the issue there is the state we're not saying here they have to establish less your honor i would evidence in those cases about what happened yesterday but part of the whole certainly is that you can't show up late even thirty five minutes and expect that you have appeared for a court date set by the court and i'll just reference the language the supreme court he had in this particular decision we reiterate that a defendant who has been released on bond on bail pending trial has a duty to appear at the place and time designated for trial now they they suggest that this is well the stamp list legal principle that you have to appear at the date and the time not just the date so they said it so we're talking about well established principle that legislatures certainly informed then they go on to say when a defendant breaches this duty and they'll say to up here now they've interpreted fails to appear as a time and place notwithstanding that the defendant has been previously informed of the time and the date of trial and he has been personally admonish by the trial court that a failure to appear  result in a trial of sensi i the very strong inference is raised that the defendant has elected not to appear so how do you distinguish that language which is certainly part of the decision making process that went into smith your honor because the issue in that case wasn't the defendant conceded she didn't appear that wasn't really an issue the issue in that case was just did she do it on purpose and the court found yes she didn't show up on purpose and so come to trial but aren't so talking about what a failure to appear really means don't you have to have a failure to appear in order to have a trial in absentia they certainly use that language and yes she didn't appear  failure to appear for any court date september the court has some meaning it's not simply you can come in any time that day and you're not going to your right your honor i think we're getting hung up on whether i absolutely agree with the court the defendant has a duty to be here on time for trial yet what i'm disagreeing about is the consequences of showing up late and i don't think it would be fair to a defendant who unlike a speedy in an m century case those defendants are admonished very thoroughly about the consequences of not showing up for trial defendants in the speedy trial context are not they're not told that they're going to waive their entire in this case the hundred fifty eight days at least that had accrued to this point she's not told that showing up late and she had a valid excuse the state would not have been able to i'm not saying that when i use the term valid excuse i don't mean to suggest that the court should not have part as to the who as to when her court date was she went all the way up to skokie and then had to come back did the two did the two illinois first district cases really distinguish between whether you have a good reason or opposed to the speedy trial case where the first district cases say the flaps and doesn't matter at all does it matter in this case that on three separate occasions she didn't appear for court at the time that she was supposed to appear your honor on eight separate occasions the state was the one not ready for court when she was there on time ready to go to trial gets out and should you look at the record and you say the state wasn't ready eight times the first as i pointed out to court dates him she didn't appear and there was a five or six week delay and then the case was continued state and both sides were waiting for a crash report now the first time that this case was actually set for trial was in july and just before the trial date the day before and i don't know if the play it was notified or not the day before the defendant came in and asked to change the court date defense counsel that yes yes so that's not one of the delays obviously where they were attributing to this no i understand but this case was in front of a number of different judges but until the state completed their discovery the complaining witness wasn't going to be notified to appear do you think i don't have a disagreement with that what i mean is that the the the record if you read all the dates and all the continuances the record really doesn't suggest that there was some delay going on by one side or the other your honor i would bet both sides certainly at times delays but if if you look at how many times the state was not ready for trial when it only had two witnesses to call i think i got that's not an analysis that is particularly relevant to the interpretation of the statute but if this court is looking at the activities of the case i don't know if we're now going looking at whether to interpret the should such that if you don't appear at the time in the place at the trial and there's no debate that this was set for nine o'clock were whether or not there needs a failure to appear your honor i think an interpretation in which there are effect if i may just say there are two significant problems with reading and a time limitation that's not in the statute the first is that this court has consistently stated in the supreme court that the be liberally construed in favor of the defendant so to the extent there is a confusion or any ambiguity about what the legislature meant when they said court day it would not be appropriate to assume something that the legislature didn't say twenty third it says defendant ready the state not ready defendant demands trial with meaning with subpoenas for trial motions state april third at one pm so is continued later for batch so what happened was on march twenty seventh defendant's attorney filed the motion to dismiss the initial of to dismiss based on speedy trial grounds and on april third warrant so it was not only issue yes but she did fail to appear again trial april third your honor i don't contest she did not do a good job coming on time yet there's one day she actually didn't appear and there are two dates she facts wasn't her actions contributable to a delay to the next day for sure yes your honor she delayed the case and her demand should have been suspended and it was the state did not what we're arguing is that it should have been waive but absolutely that was her delay the state can run the direct because she showed up on that date and the state did not and that's speaks to your honor's question also the state did not request a waiver of the class the state sprung us on this galloway six months later at the end that day the state requested a continuance and it was considered a delay attributable to miss galloway but not the resetting of the clock the state did not bring up this argument at all until six months later after mr galloway's counsel had finally filed a motion to dismiss based on a speedy trial that will find would they bring it up and there's no obligation on their part to bring up on the speedy trial issue but the matter is that she did appear that way and in really i think the issue is are we going to hold her to being required to appear at a date time set by the order or just any time that she preferred your honor i think this court can fold her response both have a duty to show up on time by enforcing the delay provision of the speedy trial after and allowing the court to issue to manage its traditional docket by if appropriate continuing the case an tie and the question really for us to resign up is what it says in the court does that mean is that what we're dealing with simply here it's pretty simple yes your honor and the legislature in other areas has included the me please the court my name is katrina sockless and i represent the people of the state of illinois and february nineteenth of two thousand time defend it while driving and a suspended license improperly if you have left of the center roadway and collided with another vehicle she then left the police station without leaving her from nation to the police officers or to the complaining witness following a bench trial she was convicted of several traffic violations defendant is  time between september twenty eighth two thousand ton when defend first amanda trial and january twenty sixth two thousand and eleven and january twenty sixth two thousand and two thousand and eleven was the first day when defendant failed to appear in court thus waiving her previous demand for trial defendant to not appear in court until a month and a half later on march eighth of two thousand and eleven when she filed another written demand for trial no defense trial counsel properly did not include that time period in this calculation because section one of three desh five b of the speedy trial act it's clear that a defendant's failure to appear for any quote set by the court operates to waive the defendant's demand motion state do not appear in the record itself but that would never continuance that day the stated that day however your honor that whether it was motion state or whether it was by agreement is irrelevant because distinguish between status or royalty either those are correct your honor and as there is no case are supporting the defendants proposition in this matter we urged the court to look at the points language of the statute and that it says september twentieth date where the defendant failed to appear as to that date the the legislature did not include time however we do have those other two cases people the smith and people the stubs where the illinois supreme court that people the smith how that when the defendant was only half an hour late to court the trial court was proper and proceeding and his trial in absentia well there was a different standard of review in that case they were doing it for use of discretion like here at minimum a minimum the line must be drawn where the people are ready their witnesses are available for trial and they've been dismissed and the court call has concluded and the defendant has not shown up a bond forfeiture has been issued well in being minor the exact same thing happened upon for future want was entered and it was question recalled the very next day well in this case on three separate occasions the court was required to enter a by richard correct and in this matter because in this case even if the judge had not issued a bond forfeiture of warrant the people's witnesses were there and ready to go all the people were ready to proceed to trial on the defendant did not show up well so you're saying we should look at other things  is important and it should be included when reading the statute and we get that support from people the smith and people the stubs the illinois supreme court the trial and of sunshine and people the smith that was only half an hour later and this court so proceeded and people the start was that it was a motion to suppress and the defendant was supposed to be there nine thirty am the court heard the motion defendant didn't appear until a little bit after eleven and this quest found that the defendant f this case the trial court made it clear that there was a morning call and an afternoon call it one pm it would it would be unjust to make the people's witnesses and everybody wait till the afternoon to force a completely separate statute it would essentially align defendants the opportunity to completely circumvent the repercussions that this legislature specifically added in their two thousand and men went to one of three desh five feet originally the amendment was one of the section one of three by which allowed for the defendants time to toil for any other causes of delay that could be attributable to the defendant in this situation in two thousand the legislature specifically added section one or three  statute that's one thing but that would be in a reasonable interpretation and the enter yes your honor it would be unreasonable to allow the defendant to circumvent the section one of three desk  honor even if you were to take that defendant's interpretation of delay it would stay in this case it would still go to our favor because it was the trial court was forced to push the trial back that doesn't matter that was it was a few that moment is irrelevant to the issue that we have before us today and in fact the state made the argument that we making today down below when the trial court heard the motion to dismiss and they made this exact same argument the state when they made the twenty one day extension did not thoroughly look at what happened on september twentieth and did not make the correct argument that they did make it during the motion to dismiss seriously early would like to add at this time not at this time your honor we just  i've got a question for you how would you write a bright line rule in this case how would you do what would you say your honor it is to when a defendant has failed to appear yes if the courtroom is no longer taking cases if the judge is off the bench for the day she has failed to appear so you're in it and that's not based on a case of saying that your honor it's based on the statute which references a court date and the what the state is asking this court to do add in a limitation that is not in the statute in people versus minor which was decided by this court in the context of the speedy trial act and which this court has referenced a few times during arguments today in minor  related the basic principle of construction the courts will not read into statutes and specifically the speedy trial act a limitation that is not contained in the language of the statute in this arch and given the defen we're not going to hold you accountable and you haven't really pushed the right of your speedy trial that day not at all your honor and that's exactly what i wanted to respond to the state's contention that for example the state said you cannot expect that the witnesses will wait around for the defendant you can't ask the defendant to profit from his her own nonfeasance that's not what we're asking the court to do and if i can just say that clearly one more time there are consequences and we are accepting those consequences the consequence are different if she comes to court late then she just blows off the court to completely isn't it better to have a clear bright line actually that we've kind of already stated in our houses and that is if you don't hear in the word yes to take the extraordinary measure of entering the bond court that your warrant that that's when you failed to appear no that's not as clear a line as i think this court is indicating are hoping at the for example in this case there and in multiple cases this is a routine practice where a court suggests it's going to issue a bond for the forfeiture warrant and then it how or later it washes a recalls the warrant it's not clear whether the warrant was actually issued or situation where we're litigating the issue of whether the court abused its discretion in issuing a refusing to take a apartment or work so that's actually not a clear line the clearest line is is the court it did she come to court that day if she came to court yes she may still cause the delay but she didn't invoke that for that drastic provision of the speedy trial and that's all very clear line we i think we appreciate everything you've argued i don't know that we could write a decision with the language that you suggested if the defendant decides to appear at any time that day then the statute has been honored in there will be a waiver but in any event there are no further questions by the other justices thank you we thank both lawyers today for their arguments and we will