In this case the record indicates that the defendant did not request a speedy trial and actively attempted to frustrate the police in their attempt to arrest him on the outstanding warrant related to the burglary charges. In such circumstances, defendant's arguments regarding the State's failure to provide him with a speedy trial are clearly meritless. Accordingly, we reject them. We turn to defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim which, in light of the above analysis, must also fail. Because defendant's sixth amendment claim is without merit, it follows defendant's trial counsel did not act unreasonably in failing to present a motion to discharge defendant on the basis of a sixth amendment violation.
Defense counsel has no duty to advance specious claims of constitutional deprivation.
95 Ill. App. We next consider defendant's claim that the evidence at trial was inconsistent with the indictment. At trial, however, the State offered testimony that Christopher Pacholoski had been burglarized, not Gilbert Vasquez. Vasquez, Pacholoski's neighbor, testified at trial that he witnessed defendant and two others running from Pacholoski's apartment just before police arrested defendant. In that case, the court considered whether the variance between the indictment alleging entry into the residence of two women, and the proof which established that it was actually their mother who was the owner of the home, warranted reversal.