{
  "id": 2784173,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gaydene Lyons, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Lyons",
  "decision_date": "1975-03-24",
  "docket_number": "No. 74-119",
  "first_page": "358",
  "last_page": "360",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "26 Ill. App. 3d 358"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "259 N.E.2d 846",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "125 Ill.App.2d 48",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1577244
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/125/0048-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "182 N.E.2d 736",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "24 Ill.2d 586",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2803931
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/24/0586-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 N.E.2d 891",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "364 Ill. 28",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2586539
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/364/0028-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 276,
    "char_count": 4651,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.67,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.171994797659966e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5089128748432824
    },
    "sha256": "fbb7325ce1b4440ee3210bd754d3b955259184451fa4c9c33d1ed380572bab3d",
    "simhash": "1:9ae33e69fdbbaed4",
    "word_count": 779
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:35:11.694582+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gaydene Lyons, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE STOUDER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis appeal is from the judgment of the circuit court of Tazewell County finding defendant, Gaydene Lyons, guilty of driving while her driver\u2019s license was suspended. After a bench trial defendant was fined $500 and sentenced to 60 days in the Tazewell County Jail.\nThe only issue on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a continuance to defendant and thereby denied defendant her right to counsel. On February 21, 1974, defendant appeared in court, was arraigned, advised of her right to counsel and that if she couldn\u2019t afford an attorney that one would be appointed for her, and of her right to a trial by jury. Defendant pleaded not guilty, waived her right to a jury and advised the court that she would retain private counsel. The court set the case for trial for April 2, 1974, at 10:30 A.M.\nOn April 2, 1974, the cause was called for trial. The judge, assistant State\u2019s attorney, arresting officer, defendant and her husband were present. Defendant requested that the court grant her a continuance on the basis that she had consulted attorney Wayne Harvey and he was not able to be present for the trial. Her statement in this regard is uncontradicted in that the State made no attempt to refute her testimony by contacting Mr. Harvey. In support of her statement she presented Mr. Harvey\u2019s business card. The People objected to the motion for continuance on the grounds that defendant had sufficient time between arraignment and trial date in which to procure counsel. Mr. Harvey had not entered an appearance on behalf of defendant and had not consulted the court or State\u2019s attorney\u2019s office regarding a continuance. The court inquired of the defendant if she had retained attorney Wayne Harvey by paying him a fee. She replied that she had not. Attorney Harvey\u2019s absence and failure to file an appearance could thus be explained by defendant\u2019s failure to pay him a fee. The court denied defendant\u2019s oral request for continuance. The cause proceeded to trial and defendant was found guilty.\nBoth parties cite People v. VanNorman, 364 Ill. 28, 2 N.E.2d 891, and People v. Solomon, 24 Ill.2d 586, 182 N.E.2d 736, for the rule that the granting of a continuance is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed in the absence of abuse of that discretion. The issue here is whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a continuance to defendant and thereby denied her right to counsel.\nThe People cite People v. Hicks, 125 Ill.App.2d 48, 259 N.E.2d 846, both for the rule that motions for continuances in criminal cases are to be addressed to the discretion of the court and are to be considered in light of the diligence shown on the part of the defendant and in support for applying this rule to the instant case. We agree with the validity of the rule but not with its applicability to the case at bar.\nThe Hicks case involved a proceeding for revocation of probation. Defendant\u2019s counsel was present and asked for \u00e1 continuance with regard to a hearing in aggravation and mitigation. The attorney made no statement as to what he intended to prove in mitigation if the continuance were granted and the trial court denied tire continuance. The case at bar concerns a trial on the charge of driving with suspended license in which defendant was forced to defend herself. This was the first request for a continuance, no attorney was present, and evidence was presented upon which the court could have concluded she did exercise diligence in acquiring an attorney. Defendant testified she had contacted an attorney and she presented the business card of this attorney. Although such evidence is certainly not conclusive that she\u2019 had in fact hired a lawyer, the fact that there was evidence defendant hired an attorney, the State failed to refute this evidence by contacting such attorney and this was defendant\u2019s first request for a continuance warrants our conclusion that the trial court abused its discretion in denying defendant\u2019s motion and thereby denied defendant of her right to counsel.\nFor the foregoing reasons the judgment of the circuit court of Tazewell County is reversed and remanded with directions that defendant be granted a new trial.\nReversed and remanded with directions.\nSTENGEL and BARRY, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE STOUDER"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Paul L. Johnston, of Peoria, for appellant.",
      "C. Brent Bode, State\u2019s Attorney, of Pekin (Jay Janssen, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gaydene Lyons, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 74-119;\nThird District\nMarch 24, 1975.\nPaul L. Johnston, of Peoria, for appellant.\nC. Brent Bode, State\u2019s Attorney, of Pekin (Jay Janssen, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0358-01",
  "first_page_order": 384,
  "last_page_order": 386
}