{
  "id": 637118,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DWAYNE WALTER, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Walter",
  "decision_date": "2002-11-08",
  "docket_number": "No. 3 \u2014 02 \u2014 0248",
  "first_page": "171",
  "last_page": "174",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "335 Ill. App. 3d 171"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "548 N.E.2d 542",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "548 N.E.2d 452",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "191 Ill. App. 3d 963",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2511815
      ],
      "weight": 5,
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/191/0963-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "356 N.E.2d 59",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "64 Ill. 2d 264",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5429886
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/64/0264-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 329,
    "char_count": 5638,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.767,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.201480102213815e-08,
      "percentile": 0.47600400641118457
    },
    "sha256": "b00dfee5943ae908aec6fc735758c53988e876a80f999dd7704383d6f7f310cd",
    "simhash": "1:abe674cc72ec9afd",
    "word_count": 942
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:04:10.004592+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. DWAYNE WALTER, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE LYTTON\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe circuit court of McDonough County granted a motion filed by defendant Dwayne Walter to dismiss the State\u2019s charge of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) (625 ILCS 5/11 \u2014 501(a)(2) (West 2000)). The State appeals. We affirm.\nOn December 15, 2001, state trooper Danny R Leezer arrested defendant for DUI and issued a uniform citation and complaint requiring him to appear in court at 9 a.m. on \u201cJanuary 23, 2001.\u201d Defendant was transported to the McDonough County jail, where he was subsequently released on bond and again given notice to appear in court at 9 a.m. on \u201cJanuary 23, 2001.\u201d On December 21, 2001, attorney John A. Carter entered his appearance on defendant\u2019s behalf.\nOn February 15, 2002, defendant filed a motion to dismiss based on Leezer\u2019s failure to set a date for defendant\u2019s first court appearance pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 504 (166 Ill. 2d R. 504) within 14 to 60 days after defendant\u2019s arrest. At the hearing on the motion, the following facts were established. Defendant did not request the 2001 first appearance date, and neither defendant nor his attorney appeared in court on January 23, 2002. It was not impracticable for Leezer to have scheduled defendant\u2019s first appearance within the time limits of Rule 504. In fact, he intended to set the appearance date for January 23, 2002, not 2001. Likewise, the corrections officer who issued the bail bond intended defendant\u2019s appearance date to be January 23, 2002.\nBased on the foregoing undisputed facts, the trial court granted defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss the DUI charge.\nOn appeal, the State contends that the trial court abused its discretion because the time limitation of Rule 504 is directory and because defendant was not prejudiced by the obvious scrivener\u2019s error. In response, defendant argues that where an error in setting an impossible first appearance date was caused by the State without any bad faith on the part of the defendant, the court does not abuse its discretion by granting a dismissal of the charge.\nSupreme Court Rule 504 governs the setting of a defendant\u2019s first appearance date in traffic cases. The rule provides that \u201c[t]he date set by the arresting officer *** for an accused\u2019s first appearance in court shall be not less than 14 days but within 60 days after the date of the arrest, whenever practicable.\u201d 166 Ill. 2d R. 504. Rule 504\u2019s time limitation is directory, not mandatory. Village of Park Forest v. Fagan, 64 Ill. 2d 264, 356 N.E.2d 59 (1976). Therefore, if the arresting officer sets a first appearance date outside the period provided by the rule, the trial court is not required to dismiss the charge for lack of jurisdiction. Fagan, 64 Ill. 2d 264, 356 N.E.2d 59. However, the State bears the burden in such situations of establishing that it was impracticable to comply with the rule\u2019s time limitation. Fagan, 64 Ill. 2d 264, 356 N.E.2d 59.\nIn determining if it was practicable to set the first appearance date within the prescribed 14- to 60-day period, neither the arresting officer\u2019s intent nor prejudice to the defendant is relevant. People v. Al fonso, 191 Ill. App. 3d 963, 548 N.E.2d 452 (1989). If the trial court determines that it was not impracticable to set the date within the rule\u2019s time limitation, the court\u2019s dismissal of charges will not be disturbed on review absent an abuse of discretion. Alfonso, 191 Ill. App. 3d 963, 548 N.E.2d 542.\nHere, it is readily apparent that both the arresting officer and the corrections officer committed \u201cscrivener\u2019s errors\u201d in setting an impossible first appearance date for defendant. It is also uncontested that defendant did nothing to cause the errors. Clearly, defendant was not obliged to guess what date the officers truly intended for him to appear in court or to bring the officers\u2019 errors to the court\u2019s attention before seeking a dismissal of the charge.\nThe State\u2019s arguments that the officers\u2019 errors were unintended and \u201ctechnical\u201d (see Alfonso, 191 Ill. App. 3d 963, 548 N.E.2d 452) and that the limitations period is directory, not mandatory, miss the point. The plain language of the rule provides that the setting of a first appearance date outside the prescribed period of Rule 504 is excusable only upon evidence of the impracticability of setting the date within the prescribed period. See Alfonso, 191 Ill. App. 3d 963, 548 N.E.2d 542. In this case, the State presented no such evidence. We further note the lack of any showing that a correction of the erroneous court date could not have been initiated by the State prior to February 13, 2002, when the period prescribed by Rule 504 expired. From the record on review, it appears that the prosecution took no action in the cause until after defendant filed his motion to dismiss.\nIn sum, the State does not dispute that it was \u201cnot impracticable\u201d for the State to set a first appearance date for defendant within the 14- to 60-day period of Rule 504. Accordingly, the trial court\u2019s order of dismissal was not an abuse of its discretion. See Alfonso, 191 Ill. App. 3d 963, 548 N.E.2d 542.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of McDonough County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nMcDADE and SLATER, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE LYTTON"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William Poncin, State\u2019s Attorney, of Macomb (John X. Breslin and Gary F. Gnidovec, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People.",
      "Santiago A. Durango, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DWAYNE WALTER, Defendant-Appellee.\nThird District\nNo. 3 \u2014 02 \u2014 0248\nOpinion filed November 8, 2002.\nWilliam Poncin, State\u2019s Attorney, of Macomb (John X. Breslin and Gary F. Gnidovec, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People.\nSantiago A. Durango, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Ottawa, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0171-01",
  "first_page_order": 189,
  "last_page_order": 192
}