People v. Lendabarker

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the State was on notice because notice was filed with the court clerk and mailed to the State's Attorney
• speedy-trial demand valid and effective when it was filed with clerk of circuit court and notice of the demand was sent to State’s Attorney’s office
• delay occasioned by defense counsel’s request to conduct research on indictment is attributable to defendant, and the delay caused by defendant’s filing of motions is ordinarily chargeable to defendant
• speedy-trial demand valid and effective when it was filed with clerk of circuit court and -9- 1-05-3741 notice of the demand was sent to State's Attorney's office
• delay occasioned by defense counsel's request to conduct research on indictment is attributable to defendant, and the delay caused by defendant's filing of motions is ordinarily chargeable to defendant
• where court had already set April 10 date on State’s motion and defense counsel came in on April 6 to request continuance, four-day period was not chargeable to defendant because it caused no delay; only period after April 10 constituted actual delay attributable to defendant

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).