People v. Sundell

2025 IL App (2d) 240490 · Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District · June 12, 2025 · No. 2-24-0490

Summary

This Illinois Appellate Court opinion addresses whether a criminal defendant waived his statutory right to a speedy trial by repeatedly failing to appear at scheduled court dates after filing a demand. The court concluded that under the plain language of the speedy-trial act, the defendant's unexcused absences constituted a waiver of his demand, thereby reversing the trial court's order dismissing the indictment.

Court
Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District
Writing for the Court
Justice Schostok; Justice Kennedy; Justice Birkett
Jurisdiction
Illinois
Decision date
June 12, 2025
Docket number
2-24-0490
Procedural posture
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Kane County dismissing the indictment for speedy‑trial violation
Standard of review
de novo
Precedential value
published
Parties
People v. Dillon M. Sundell
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

speedy trialcriminal procedureappellate procedureappellate jurisdictionstandard of review

Practice areas

criminal procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the defendant waived his speedy‑trial demand by failing to appear after filing the demand.
  2. Whether the new fentanyl indictment violated the speedy‑trial act under the Williams rule and compulsory joinder.

Holdings

  1. The defendant waived his speedy‑trial demand by failing to appear on several court dates after filing the demand.
  2. The trial court’s dismissal was erroneous; the indictment is reinstated and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

Key quotations

“(b) Every person on bail[1] or recognizance shall be tried by the court having jurisdiction within 160 days from the date defendant demands trial unless delay is occasioned by the defendant ***. The defendant’s failure to appear for any court date set by the court operates to waive the defendant’s demand for trial made under this subsection.” (¶44)
“A fundamental principle of statutory construction is that, when interpreting a statute, a court must give effect to the legislature’s intent, the best indication of which is the language of the statute, given its plain and ordinary meaning.” (¶51)

Factual background

Defendant was initially indicted for possession of heroin. After a lab report showed the substance was fentanyl, the State filed a new indictment on October 4, 2023, more than 160 days after the defendant’s speedy‑trial demand. The trial court dismissed the indictment, finding a speedy‑trial violation. The State appealed.

Procedural history

The circuit court dismissed the fentanyl indictment after finding a speedy‑trial violation; the State appealed.

Remand instructions

Remand for further proceedings on the fentanyl indictment.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…