{ "id": 132347, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NASHAUN B. QUICK, Defendant-Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Quick", "decision_date": "2001-04-23", "docket_number": "No. 3\u201400\u20140927", "first_page": "392", "last_page": "397", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "321 Ill. App. 3d 392" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "588 N.E.2d 1119", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "147 Ill. 2d 40", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3278337 ], "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/147/0040-01" ] }, { "cite": "28 U.S.C.A. \u00a7 1257", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "U.S.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "95 L. Ed. 1135", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed.", "year": 1951, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "341 U.S. 491", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1148293 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1951, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/341/0491-01" ] }, { "cite": "28 U.S.C. \u00a7 2101", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "U.S.C.", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(f)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "608 N.E.2d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "239 Ill. App. 3d 1050", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5149779 ], "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/239/1050-01" ] }, { "cite": "457 N.E.2d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "98 Ill. 2d 546", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3122805 ], "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/98/0546-01" ] }, { "cite": "224 N.E.2d 252", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "36 Ill. 2d 492", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5377680 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/36/0492-01" ] }, { "cite": "256 N.E.2d 751", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "45 Ill. 2d 96", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2896557 ], "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/45/0096-01" ] }, { "cite": "743 N.E.2d 555", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "195 Ill. 2d 42", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 725333 ], "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/195/0042-01" ] }, { "cite": "121 S. Ct. 174", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "148 L. Ed. 2d 120", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "531 U.S. 872", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9542275, 9542372, 9542148, 9542937, 9542873, 9542666, 9542603, 9542314, 9542541, 9542736, 9542489, 9543003, 9542204, 9542815 ], "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/531/0872-03", "/us/531/0872-05", "/us/531/0872-01", "/us/531/0872-13", "/us/531/0872-12", "/us/531/0872-09", "/us/531/0872-08", "/us/531/0872-04", "/us/531/0872-07", "/us/531/0872-10", "/us/531/0872-06", "/us/531/0872-14", "/us/531/0872-02", "/us/531/0872-11" ] }, { "cite": "729 N.E.2d 502", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "188 Ill. 2d 578", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "720 N.E.2d 1137", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "308 Ill. App. 3d 474", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 261325 ], "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/308/0474-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 491, "char_count": 9566, "ocr_confidence": 0.768, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.438136232882686e-08, "percentile": 0.3422157044677122 }, "sha256": "db7f21f92bb07ec4688054b5b4062e03e5c5b5d50d2ccad8745fcd6a457aa461", "simhash": "1:f54bb1146afd402d", "word_count": 1679 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:50:01.734981+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NASHAUN B. QUICK, Defendant-Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE SLATER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nFollowing a jury trial, defendant, Nashaun B. Quick, was convicted of first degree murder. On appeal, this court reversed his conviction and remanded his cause for a new trial. People v. Quick, 308 Ill. App. 3d 474, 720 N.E.2d 1137 (1999), appeal denied, 188 Ill. 2d 578, 729 N.E.2d 502 (2000), cert, denied, 531 U.S. 872, 148 L. Ed. 2d 120, 121 S. Ct. 174 (2000). On remand, the circuit court granted defendant\u2019s motion for discharge on the ground that the State had failed to retry defendant within the time established by the speedy trial act (the Act) (725 ILCS 5/103\u20145 (West 2000)). The State filed its certificate of impairment and notice of appeal. See 145 Ill. 2d R. 604(a).\nOn appeal, the State contends that the circuit court erred because: (1) there is no statutory right to a speedy trial on remand for a new trial; and (2) assuming, arguendo, that such a right exists, the State\u2019s filing of a petition for writ of certiorari automatically tolls the Act\u2019s 120-day period for bringing a defendant to trial.\nOn January 11, 2000, the State filed its petition for leave to appeal with the Illinois Supreme Court seeking review of this court\u2019s decision to reverse defendant\u2019s conviction and remand his cause for a new trial. The supreme court denied the petition on April 5, 2000.\nOn April 26, 2000, the State filed a petition with the supreme court asking the court to stay its mandate pending the State\u2019s filing of a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. The petition was denied.\nOn May 9, 2000, this court filed its mandate with the circuit court. The State filed its petition for writ of certiorari on June 30, 2000. The United States Supreme Court denied the petition on October 2, 2000. Defendant filed his motion for discharge with the circuit court on October 11, 2000, contending that, as 155 days had elapsed since the appellate court filed its mandate, the State had failed to retry him within the 120-day limit established by the Act.\nThe circuit court granted defendant\u2019s motion. In a written order, the court stated that, according to controlling supreme and appellate court case law, when a criminal defendant\u2019s cause is remanded for a new trial, the Act\u2019s speedy trial term begins to run from the time the appellate court\u2019s mandate is filed in the circuit court. The circuit court also ruled that the speedy trial term is not tolled by the filing of a petition for writ of certiorari.\nThe Act provides, inter alla, that \u201c[e]very person in custody in this State for an alleged offense shall be tried by the court having jurisdiction within 120 days from the date he was taken into custody unless delay is occasioned by the defendant.\u201d 725 ILCS 5/103\u20145(a) (West 2000). \u201cIt is well settled that, when a defendant prevails in an Illinois court of review, a new statutory 120-day [speedy trial] term will commence running when the mandate issues and is docketed in the trial court.\u201d People v. Crane, 195 Ill. 2d 42, 49 n.2, 743 N.E.2d 555, 560 n.2 (2001), citing People v. Worley, 45 Ill. 2d 96, 256 N.E.2d 751 (1970); see also People v. Adams, 36 Ill. 2d 492, 224 N.E.2d 252 (1967). Moreover, in promulgating its rules, the supreme court clearly contemplated the Act\u2019s application to causes remanded for a new trial. Supreme Court Rule 604(a)(4) provides that \u201c[t]he time during which an appeal by the State is pending is not counted for the purpose of determining whether an accused is entitled to discharge under [the Act].\u201d 145 Ill. 2d R. 604(a)(4).\nThe State concedes that the Illinois Supreme Court decisions applying the Act to cases in which a reviewing court has remanded a defendant\u2019s cause for a new trial are controlling authority for the proposition that there exists a statutory right to a speedy trial under such circumstances. The State also acknowledges that this court has no option but to follow the decisions of our state\u2019s highest court. See Rickey v. Chicago Transit Authority, 98 Ill. 2d 546, 457 N.E.2d 1 (1983). The State maintains that it challenges these decisions in this court only to preserve the issue for further review.\nHowever, the State also urges us to question the wisdom of the decisions. We decline to do so. It is not a proper function of the Appellate Court of Illinois to act as an advisory body to the supreme court. Accordingly, in keeping with our proper role as an intermediate court of review, we merely observe, that pursuant to controlling authority, defendant was possessed of a statutory right to a speedy trial when his cause was remanded for a new trial. Thus, we have only to address the State\u2019s contention that the filing of a petition for writ of certiorari automatically tolls the running of the Act\u2019s 120-day period for bringing a defendant to trial.\nOn remand, the Act\u2019s speedy trial term commences when the reviewing court\u2019s mandate is filed and properly docketed in the circuit court. People v. Alerte, 239 Ill. App. 3d 1050, 608 N.E.2d 1 (1992). Unless it is stayed, the clerk of the reviewing court transmits the mandate to the circuit court no earlier than 21 days after the entry of judgment. 155 Ill. 2d R. 368(a).\nIn cases other than those in which the appellate court has modified or set aside an injunction, the appellate court\u2019s mandate is stayed automatically if, before the mandate may issue, a party entitled to seek review by the supreme court files either an affidavit of intent to file a petition for leave to appeal or a petition for leave to appeal. 155 Ill. 2d R. 368(b). However, where a party seeks review by the United States Supreme Court, a stay is not automatic. See 155 Ill. 2d R. 368(c). Furthermore, whether to grant the stay is a decision committed to the discretion of the court from which the stay is sought. 155 Ill. 2d R. 368(c), Committee Comments, at clxv.\nIn the case at bar, the Illinois Supreme Court denied the State\u2019s motion to stay its mandate pending disposition of the State\u2019s petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. Although it could have, the State did not seek a stay from this court. See 155 Ill. 2d R. 368(c). Nor did the State avail itself of the opportunity to seek a stay from the United States Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 2101(f) (1994). Accordingly, absent delay occasioned by defendant, the State had 120 days to bring defendant to trial once this court\u2019s mandate was filed and docketed on May 9, 2000.\nThe State concedes that defendant caused no delay that would serve to toll the running of the speedy trial term and that more than 120 days had elapsed when defendant filed his motion for discharge. Nevertheless, the State argues that, even in the absence of a stay or recall of the mandate, its filing of a petition for writ of certiorari tolled the running of the speedy trial term.\nIn support of its argument, the State cites to Supreme Court Rule 604(a)(4). That rule provides that \u201c[t]he time during which an appeal by the State is pending is not counted for the purpose of determining whether an accused is entitled to discharge under [the Act]\u201d (emphasis added) (145 Ill. 2d R. 604(a)(4)). However, throughout the supreme court rules, an \u201cappeal\u201d is given distinct treatment from a request for discretionary review. See, e.g., 145 Ill. 2d R. 604(a)(3) (\u201cdefendant shall not be held in jail or to bail during the pendency *** of a petition or appeal by the State under Rule 315(a)\u201d (emphasis added)). A petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court is a request for discretionary review. See Hammerstein v. Superior Court, 341 U.S. 491, 95 L. Ed. 1135, 71 S. Ct. 820 (1951); 28 U.S.C.A. \u00a7 1257, Historical Notes, Commentary on 1988 Revision (West 2000). Therefore, Rule 604(a)(4) is inapposite to the instant matter as the State\u2019s petition for writ of certiorari is not an \u201cappeal\u201d within the meaning that term is given in the supreme court rules.\nWhat is more, it is an oft-stated maxim that the expression of one thing in an enactment excludes all others (Welch v. Johnson, 147 Ill. 2d 40, 588 N.E.2d 1119 (1992)). Accordingly, because Rule 604(a)(4) expressly applies to appeals only, the rule evinces an intent that requests for discretionary review should not toll the running of the Act\u2019s speedy trial term. Therefore, we hold that, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 604(a)(4), the Act\u2019s speedy trial term is not tolled when the State files a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. In light of this holding, we decline to consider the State\u2019s public policy arguments in support of the contrary conclusion.\nFor the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Rock Island County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nHOMER, P.J., and HOLDRIDGE, J., concur.\nRule 368 is applicable to criminal appeals. See 177 Ill. 2d R. 612(q). In addition, it should be noted that the State may petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court. 145 Ill. 2d R. 604(a)(2). Thus, the State is \u201ca party who is entitled to seek review by the [Illinois] Supreme Court\u201d (155 Ill. 2d R. 368(b)).", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE SLATER" } ], "attorneys": [ "Marshall E. Douglas, State\u2019s Attorney, of Rock Island (John X. Breslin and Gary F. Gnidovec (argued), both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People.", "Geoffrey P. Campbell (argued) and Stephanie Barrick, both of Schoede, Scott, Panousis, Campbell & Barrick, of Rock Island, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NASHAUN B. QUICK, Defendant-Appellee.\nThird District\nNo. 3\u201400\u20140927\nOpinion filed April 23, 2001.\nMarshall E. Douglas, State\u2019s Attorney, of Rock Island (John X. Breslin and Gary F. Gnidovec (argued), both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People.\nGeoffrey P. Campbell (argued) and Stephanie Barrick, both of Schoede, Scott, Panousis, Campbell & Barrick, of Rock Island, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0392-01", "first_page_order": 410, "last_page_order": 415 }