Opinion ID: 2525503
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Wambsganss

Text: Defendant Todd Wambsganss was issued citations for driving under the influence (625 ILCS 5/11-501(a)(2) (West 2006)) and speeding (625 ILCS 5/11-601(b) (West 2006)) on September 18, 2008. The first court appearance was set by the arresting officer for November 20, 200863 days after arrest. Defendant's attorney entered his appearance on November 5, along with speedy-trial and jury-trial demands. Defendant was not provided with a new appearance date or a trial date before November 20, when he appeared and announced ready for trial. When the State was unable to announce ready for trial, defendant filed a motion to dismiss. The circuit court granted the motion, stating: [T]he plain language of Rule 504 provides that the setting of a first appearance date outside of the prescribed period of Rule 504, which is over 60 days, is excusable only upon evidence of the impracticality of setting the date within the prescribed period. I heard no evidence of any impracticality of setting that date within the prescribed period. So by case law I think it's necessary that I, I order the dismissal of this case. When the State moved to clarify this order, the circuit court specified that the dismissal was with prejudice.