next case in our qualls this morning is gender number nine case number one hundred five six three two people versus larry  denial of his right to a speedy trial under section one zero three desh five beat the first of all there are no multiple factually related offenses charged at different times in this case there is only one offense charged it was dismissed and it was charged again during all of this time the defendant was on bail through to the date of his sentencing which occurred december twenty seven zero six consequential the speedy trial period terminated the prosecution for this single offense after one hundred sixty days from the date it was timely made on december fourteenth two thousand four i've done the calculations and the hundred sixty day comes out may twenty three to two thousand and five in other words the defendant not having been tried  the single offense charge by may twenty three of zero five his section one zero three five the motion for discharge should've been granted and it's the s i don't see where multiple offenses are involved in this case at all therefore what is the relevancy of the compulsory statute compulsory joinder statute this case at bar involves they just ignored it and on and on and on and went and about ten months later they dismiss the case and then turn around and file another one charging with the same identical offense the meantime is hundred sixty  period his demand was timely file it was proper there's no dispute on the facts of this case he did not delay the trial that's undisputed the facts of this  case show simply that the state ignored dropped the ball and didn't try and within a hundred sixty days period i hope that answers the question well if we reject your contention that there's only one is there any other bases still for firm conviction if you say there were two charges you would have great difficulty in finding the second offense let me point out to the court use of the term charge is one thing but the use of the term charging what you're charging an offense you can have charge for this charge for that information citation indictment but what is the offense we only offense of section eleven five zero one a one i caught fire a one a one file one a one is your blood alcohol content over point  o eight that's the offense that's charged now notice what happens here on november thirteen my client is arrested and he is released on bail that day nobody disputes it's timely nobody disputes that it's proper now the next matter of importance is september nineteenth two thousand and five at which time the state dismisses the citation and dismiss is the case where he was charged with violating five zero one and one at the same time they file an information and they charged him with violating five law one a one that's the same offense now if you want to call a charge by information or charged a citation that does that that's not relevant what is relevant is there's a single offense and what's most important is that the violation charg information was identical to the offense charged in the traffic citation now the difference between the two between the citation and the information case is in any information case they alleged  nuts five well one day one is not drunk driving and say it's having a blood alcohol content over the limit and therefore you violate and shall state such prior conviction so as to give notice to the defendant now this is important however the fact of such prior conviction and the state's intention to seek and enhance the sentence i not elements of that so i'm reading from the statute not elements of the offense and may not be disclosed to the jury during trial unless otherwise permitted by issues raised during the trial for the purposes information not part of the facts not in a prior pants it specifically says they will not be an element of the offense and they will not be told to the jury they're always there because they're going to increase the sentence and so we get record i have a copy of it there were i find to say tensions in the record and i've got the pages but the point is that i found two that the police officer wrote one ticket for  five zero one eight a one with just the blood alcohol and i think this i think the second ticket was for a five zero one a to do you show a third one that but in any event this is so simple we have one offense we have one of france and the offense was charged and he was released on bail and the statute says any person released on  no excuse he should be discharged and the offenses that were charged in the dismissed case and then reinstated with the same five zero on a one offenses period was no change the only change they made in the second prosecution was of alleging facts to enhance the sentence just as it says in one eleven desperate they were trying to conform to the statu that doesn't change the fence he's not charged with violating anything other than five o one a one period lester's any further questions my calculations on one hundred sixty days to i i don't i hope they're correct but it doesn't matter because nothing happened until a year later anyway but i think the accurate time would have been maybe twenty maybe twenty three of zero five you should that they should have been tr offense is different if there are no multiple factually related offenses charged at different times in this case your position is compulsory jointer has nothing to do with absolutely nothing that's that's  let's say they would have started this case as an information so they would charge him with what they would charge him with violating five zero one a one and five zero one a again that the a one again and then they added that she had a prior conviction for drinking by a lab but my motion chase was to dismiss because how could you prove the second count without bringing in the information filing felony charges and we're here not where you said they didn't have a right to further charge the defendant with a felony we're here with you saying that speedy trial applies that's  that that's not the case i say what is controlling is one o three section one o three dash five he did nothing to do away he filed a timely jury demand it was improper language they knew good morning your honor some may please the court my name is charles redfern i'm in the system attorney general from the office of the only turkey general here today on behalf of the people of the state of illinois before i get into my main presentation here i think it's best to respond to some of th  in counsel's arguments here to start with the key dispute in the state's position here is that there are multiple charges and that compulsory jointer is the key issue here and ultimately because there are multiple charges and compulsory  jointer is not satisfied under people versus jackson therefore there cannot be relation back and consequently the defendant speedy trial the man that was filed as with misdemeanor does not apply to subsequently file felony and because of that under the statute there is no valid speedy trial demand here and therefore you cannot be a speedy trial violation i want to point to the record and specifically to our brief because there was an issue about how many charges were here five to two three zero six and two two three zero seven two two three zero five was driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of subsection eight two two two two two three zero two two three zero five was driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of a two two two three zero six was driving on a revoked license the defendant had a revoked license at that time in violation of five slash six dash three hundred three a and then two  record number two and then the information is in page one of record two finally before going to my presentation although this doesn't affect argument i would like to point out that i was in coun within one hundred sixty days of a valid speedy trial demand when the defendant is on bail and here is the defendant was arrested and arrested by the wresting sheriff's deputy and charged with three uniformed traffic citations even speedy trial demand but he was not brought to trial as to those three uniform traffic citations instead what happened is that he was brought to trial on the subsequent felony now the three traffic citations are different in the subsequent felony and the felony is a new and additional charge there is a new conduct being charged here the state has a new requirement to me to to prove the felony of ultimately so that he can be convicted of a felony yes the state only has to prove a subsection one driving under the influence however the fact that he had a subsequent conviction wasn't charged in the traffic citations the subsequent conviction defendant would be up there saying but you couldn't sentence me to a felony we had to bring something new he was facing new conduct being charged against him he was facing a new sentencing statute and he was facing a new hi no involvement and this is important because the state's attorney had no decision to bring the uniform traffic citations the state's attorney has an independent responsibility to evaluate the facts and law and decide whether to bring a charge a defend protection when there is a possible charge of punitive defense protection is the statute of limitations it's a three year statute of limitations for a felony so the state's attorney lost the opportunity to revaluate the case by saying that the what i read on january twenty fourth of two thousand and five states attorneys sent a notice for felony review in this case yes around so this early two months after the  whether the defendant has a speedy trial right as to the felony and again that's different than the mr mears the defendant where he's had to mr mears plenty at that time and to be very clear about this the defendant did not bring a motion to dismiss as to his misdemeanors the misdemeanors were dropped he brought the motion dismissed only when the felony was pending and so when you say well we've been going on we've been going on for a hundred sixty days he could have brought a motion to dismiss as to the let me give you a hypothetical example the state's attorney brought the missing near traffic citation which is not in this case but it would say the state's attorney decided to bring the misdemeanor and the state's attorney had knowledge of the felony but decided not to bring it which sounds like your concern right bring those charges the state's attorney was forced into this case by view pressing deputy who sits attorney in you know in most cases will be able to sit in say do i want to go forward on my charges and therefore i'm ready to go compulsory jointer when there is uniform stopped traffic citations filed by an arresting officer really comes down to people versus jackson is a side issue was absolutely and jackson equally applies here because and although jackson has not been applying i will say jackson has not been explicitly extended by this corps but where there has been extended by the appellate courts but his reasoning makes the same sense it is interpret the compulsory joinder statute he recognizes that i think compulsory joinder statute is for the bad acting prosecutor the prosecutor who says i will hold a charge back in my pocket and i will not bring all charges at the same time but here the prosecutor had no choice the choice to bring  charge was the sheriff's deputy not the prosecutor's it is that decision and when you look at the compulsory joinder statute is known to the prosecutor at the time of the commencement of the charges that's the key issue when the objective manifestation of record is that the state's attorney at least as of january was reviewing felony charges and they wait until september of that year basically nine months if you use the analogy of holding the felony charge of black yes what do we make of this nine month period what what what does that mean that defendant is no different than any other defendant who is being investigated by state's attorney or by the law enforcement who might have a future charge coming against him when there is a defendant who says well are possible defendant who says well will they bring a charge against me will that come your answer is the state can bring a charge against you with any period is long and it's within the statute of limitations the statute of limitations is the time for the prosecutor to develop his case is there her case and then you bring the charge once you bring a charge you're going to the court insane i'm ready to go i have nothing more to investigate i don't need to go through felony review let's get going because the defendant is on bail or he's arrested and therefore that's when there's a different fairness concern so you say my nine months there are two different fairness concerns is what i'm saying here when the defendant was arrested on the missing year traffic citations an i have what they claim is the trial court record so in by the court and champagne and it's numbered so it must be an exact kind of thing the jury demand small letters that i'm sure it's five on a two that is you're driving under the influence you turn the page and you have the second one is see that is the record see seven he says is the third one but it really doesn't matter because they didn't do anything they blew it this case the state admits there's one hundred sixty day trial rule they admit that there's no dispute about this they don't just dispute the validity of the demand was made on the fourteenth they had to bring him to trial i don't care who was on the first offense or the second offense of the third of the fourth  days you didn't try there's no story here there's nothing the man was entitle to a statutory right which is really an implementation of this constitutional right to a speedy trial period they had they had a duty to try him within one hundred sixty days i don't con what charges they were what offenses they were they had not had a time limit and they blew it now he raises a point that really is self explanatory sentence he still would have to try the dam case within one hundred sixty days there's no excuse for not doing that if it's a felony if it's a misdemeanor if it's five felonies and six misdemeanors the case had to be tried within one hundred sixty days period and there's no excuse for that here we realized that the notice of felon interview was in the record but i don't know how i didn't know how binding that would be on the state's attorney so i laid off but won eleven dash three one eleven dash three controls enhancement for sentencing purposes that is so important so important because the first time i saw it ran into i didn't know what to do wit case number one zero five six three to be taken under