author: JUSTICE LUND

text:
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PHILLIP D. MENNENGA, Defendant-Appellee.
    Fourth District
    No. 4—89—0563
    Opinion filed March 22, 1990.
    Rehearing denied April 19, 1990.

      Thomas J. Difanis, State’s Attorney, of Urbana (Kenneth R. Boyle, Robert J. Biderman, and Timothy J. Londrigan, all of State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, of counsel), for the People.
    Glenn A. Stanko, of Reno, O’Byrne & Kepley, of Champaign, for appellee.
   JUSTICE LUND

delivered the opinion of the court:

The circuit court of Champaign County dismissed count I of an information charging Phillip D. Mennenga, defendant, with aggravated criminal sexual assault. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, par. 12—14.) We must first determine whether there is appellate jurisdiction.

An information was filed on March 17, 1989, charging defendant in count I with aggravated criminal sexual assault, and in count II with aggravated criminal sexual abuse (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, par. 12—16). At a March 27, 1989, court proceeding, the preliminary hearing was set for April 11, 1989. On April 6, 1989, the State took the case before a grand jury, which returned a no-true bill as to the assault charge and a true bill as to the abuse charge. On April 11, 1989, the defendant appeared for the preliminary hearing, was not given one, and was arraigned on the indictment, count II. On April 26, 1989, defendant received notice of a preliminary hearing on count I, set for May 1, 1989. Defendant appeared on May 1, 1989, and unsuccessfully objected to the preliminary hearing. Probable cause was found as to count I. The same witnesses testified at the preliminary hearing that testified at the grand jury hearing.

On May 16, 1989, a motion to dismiss information and indictment was filed, setting forth the above-stated procedures. On July 7, 1989, a hearing was held on the motion to dismiss. The trial court made an oral pronouncement of its dismissal of count I. The docket entry of July 7 states:

“People present by Assistant State’s Attorney Elizabeth Dob-son. Defendant present with his Attorney Glenn Stanko. Arguments heard on defendant’s motion to dismiss the information and indictment. The motion is allowed as to Count I of the information. Count I of the information is dismissed. The motion is denied as to Count II of the indictment.”

The State filed a notice of appeal on July 12,1989.

On September 14, 1989, a written order dismissing count I was signed by the judge, and was filed. Counsel for both the State and the defense signed the written order, approving it as to form. No notice of appeal was filed after the September 14 filing. The relevant part of the September 14 order provided:

“The motion to dismiss information and indictment should be granted with respect to the information (Count I) based on the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 — 12 of Count I of the motion, and in particular, based on the impropriety of filing an information and holding a preliminary hearing on a charge when the grand jury had earlier returned a no true bill on that identical charge.”

I

The State’s right to appeal to the appellate court is provided by Supreme Court Rule 606(b). “[T]he notice of appeal must be filed with the clerk of the circuit court within 30 days after the entry of the final judgment appealed from ***.” (107 Ill. 2d R. 606(b).) Failure to file the notice of appeal is jurisdictional. See Danaher v. Knightsbridge Co. (1978), 56 Ill. App. 3d 977, 979, 372 N.E.2d 862, 865-66.

Defendant contends that the order of September 14 was the entry of the judgment^ and the prior filing of the notice of appeal was not sufficient to confer appellate jurisdiction. The State contends the oral pronouncement on July 7 was the entry and, if not, the docket entry was the entry.

Supreme Court Rule 271 provides as follows:

“Orders on Motions
When the court rules upon a motion other than in the course of trial, the attorney for the prevailing party shall prepare and present to the court the order or judgment to be entered, unless the court directs otherwise.” (Emphasis in original.) (107 Ill. 2d R. 271.)

Rule 272 states:

“When Judgment is Entered
If at the time of announcing final judgment the judge requires the submission of a form of written judgment to be signed by him, the clerk shall make a notation to that effect and the judgment becomes final only when the signed judgment is filed. If no such signed written judgment is to be filed, the judge or clerk shall forthwith make a notation of judgment and enter the judgment of record promptly, and the judgment is entered at the time it is entered of record.” (Emphasis in original.) 107 Ill. 2d R. 272.

While both rules come under article II of rules on civil proceedings in the trial court (107 Ill. 2d, art. II, Rules 101 through 300), Rule 271 has been held applicable to criminal cases (see People v. Jones (1984), 104 Ill. 2d 268, 276, 472 N.E.2d 455, 458), and a rule similar to Rule 272 is applicable in criminal cases. (See People v. Boston (1975), 27 Ill. App. 3d 246, 248, 327 N.E.2d 40, 42.) The applicability of Rule 271 in Jones involved an order suppressing evidence and the time of its entry. We note that a motion relating to suppression of evidence requires certain findings. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, par. 114—12(e).) The Jones decision cited Rule 271, and stated a decision on a motion to suppress was not a final judgment and a written order was necessary. (Jones, 104 Ill. 2d at 275, 472 N.E.2d at 458.) The opinion went on to say:

“The notice of appeal filed August 13, 1981, was premature and did not confer jurisdiction on the appellate court. Rule 271 (87 Ill. 2d R. 271) is applicable to rulings on motions and requires that a written order be presented to the court for signature. Also, the conversation between the court and counsel when the oral ruling was made clearly indicates that a signed order suppressing the evidence was contemplated. The judge’s oral pronouncement on July 24, 1981, was not an order from which an appeal could be taken. (See People ex rel. Person v. Miller (1977), 56 Ill. App. 3d 450, 459-60.) Our appellate court has, on several occasions, held that a notice of appeal filed after an oral ruling, but before the filing of a written order, is premature and confers no jurisdiction on the appellate court. People v. Eddington (1978), 64 Ill. App. 3d 650, 654; People v. Boston (1975), 27 Ill. App. 3d 246, 248; People v. Deaton (1974), 16 Ill. App. 3d 748, 749.” (Jones, 104 Ill. 2d at 276, 472 N.E.2d at 458-59.)

An argument can be made that all of this is dicta because the State had filed a second notice of appeal within 30 days after the written order was entered. The subject of appellate jurisdiction arose when the supreme court was ruling on a speedy-trial issue.

In Boston, cited in the above statement from Jones, the notice of appeal was filed after an oral pronouncement, discharging the defendant because of the speedy-trial provision, but before the written order was entered. The Boston court stated:

“It has been held in several civil cases that if a notice of appeal is filed after the trial court has stated what its decision •will be but before a written order is filed, the notice of appeal is not timely and the appellate court has no jurisdiction. (Grissom v. Buckley-Loda Community Unit School District No. 8, 11 Ill. App. 3d 55, 296 N.E.2d 624; Davidson Masonry & Restoration, Inc. v. J. L. Wroan & Sons, Inc., 2 Ill. App. 3d 524, 275 N.E.2d 654; Belinski v. City National Bank, 133 Ill. App. 2d 800, 270 N.E.2d 524; Green v. Green, 21 Ill. App. 3d 396, 315 N.E.2d 324; Loveless v. Loveless, 3 Ill. App. 3d 967, 279 N.E.2d 531.) We realize that some of the cases cited above rely partially upon Supreme Court Rule 272 (Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 110A, par. 272), a rule applicable only to civil cases. We find, however, that a similar rule is applicable in criminal cases as well.” (Boston, 27 Ill. App. 3d at 248, 327 N.E.2d at 41-42.)

The trial court in Boston specifically stated that a written order would be prepared, specifically triggering the delay in entry if Rule 272, or a common law rule similar to Rule 272, applies.

Rule 271 would appear to apply to court orders that follow decisions on motions, other than in course of trial. A judgment based upon a verdict or a decision after a bench trial is not a result of a motion. A ruling on a speedy-trial issue or similar to the one now before the court can permanently terminate prosecution on a charge, but results from a hearing on a motion. The motion with which we are presently concerned was not made during trial.

Contrary to the State’s argument, we do not find People v. Allen (1978), 71 Ill. 2d 378, 375 N.E.2d 1283, applicable. In that case, the court held that in a criminal case the pronouncement of the sentence is the judicial act which comprises the judgment of the court and the notice of appeal within 30 days of the pronouncement vested appellate jurisdiction, even though a written judgment was filed at a later date. We note portions of Rule 606(b) cited in Allen (58 Ill. 2d R. 606(b)) have been deleted from the present Rule 606 (107 Ill. 2d R. 606). Our court, in requiring a written order in a case involving a motion to suppress hearing, limited Allen to its facts. People v. Eddington (1978), 64 Ill. App. 3d 650, 654, 381 N.E.2d 835, 838.

We are aware of the general administration order on record-keeping in the circuit court (Ill. Ann. Stat., ch. 25, par. 16(D)(b), at 30 (Smith-Hurd Supp. 1989)). The administrative order, effective January 1,1971, provides in part:

“The action of the judge shall be reflected in a signed order or a minute order. A minute order is an orally pronounced order shown on the record sheet in brief form sufficient to record the action of the judge. When a signed order is filed, that fact shall be noted on the record sheet, briefly indicating its nature. An order otherwise appealable shall not be considered nonappealable because it is in minute form.”

This administrative order is not automatically effective as to all counties, and has not, to our understanding, been made applicable to Champaign County. Many of the lesser populated counties of the fourth district are affected by this order, and docket orders are regularly considered sufficient to trigger the notice of appeal filing period.

Regardless of the attempts in previous opinions to clarify the issues of time for notice of appeal, confusion still exists. Justice Jones, in Boston, when stating the existence of a rule in criminal proceeding similar to Rule 272, was recognizing the historic practice of treating docket entries, or minute orders, as final orders, unless the entry called for a written order. In Boston, the trial court had stated a written order would be prepared.

We conclude, regardless of the use of the word motion in Rule 271, orders terminating a criminal charge with finality, as in Boston, based on a violation of the speedy-trial statute, and for reasons existing in the present case, are subject to Rule 272 treatment. This conclusion is consistent with Rule 272, with the previously quoted administrative order, and with historic practice in criminal cases. We emphasize that Rule 271 and Rule 272 were adopted for civil practice, and certain terminology might not apply as well to criminal procedure. The orders in Boston and in this case are in the nature of a final judgment as envisioned by Rule 272.

The trial court, when ruling on the motion to dismiss, did not call for a written order, and the docket entry did not provide for a written order. The docket entry became the final entry of the order and was appealable. The motion to dismiss this appeal was correctly denied when initially presented to this court.

II

We now must decide if it is proper to proceed with a preliminary hearing as to count I under the facts in this case. The State and the defendant agree that the information containing count I was filed March 17, 1989. The defendant was arrested the same date and posted bail on March 21. On March 27, a preliminary hearing was set for April 11. The defendant was arraigned on March 30 and, on April 6, a grand jury returned a no-true bill as to count I and a true bill as to count II. No preliminary hearing was provided on April 11. On April 26, a notice of a preliminary hearing on the original count I was mailed, setting the preliminary hearing for May 1. The same witnesses used in the grand jury were used in the preliminary hearing, and no additional evidence was provided.

The preliminary hearing was provided within 60 days of the arrest, and the defendant was on bail. Therefore, there was no violation of section 109—3.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, par. 109—3.1).

This appears to be a case of first impression.

Section 112 — 4(b) of the Code prescribes the duties of the grand jury and the State’s Attorney. The statute provides, in relevant part:

“In cases where the initial charge has been commenced by information or complaint and a finding of no probable cause has resulted as to any offense charged therein, the Grand Jury shall be informed of the finding entered at the preliminary hearing and further advised that such finding shall not bar the State from initiating new charges by indictment, information or complaint if the State’s Attorney has reasonable grounds to believe that the evidence available at that time is sufficient to establish probable cause.” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, par. 112—4(b).)

This statutory provision makes sense for several reasons. The State cannot appeal from a dismissal on a finding of no probable cause. (People v. Kent (1972), 54 Ill. 2d 161, 164, 295 N.E.2d 710, 712.) The defendant has not been convicted or acquitted, and has not been placed in double jeopardy. (People v. Harris (1972), 52 Ill. 2d 558, 562, 288 N.E.2d 385, 387-88; People v. Webb (1968), 39 Ill. 2d 146, 149, 233 N.E.2d 365, 367.) In absence of double jeopardy, or a violation of the speedy-trial provisions, public policy justifies the State being able to proceed if additional evidence of the offense is obtained. Limitation provisions and the provisions of section 109 — 3.1 of the Code adequately protect the alleged offenders. We recognize that no additional evidence was indicated in the present case.

If the State proceeds first by information, and a finding of no probable cause results from the preliminary hearing, our courts have recognized that the State can subsequently proceed with a grand jury indictment for the same offense. (Kent, 54 Ill. 2d at 163-64, 295 N.E.2d at 711-12.) The State also can proceed by filing an information and then, prior to the preliminary hearing, obtain grand jury indictments, thus avoiding the necessity of the preliminary hearing. (People v. Rush (1980), 91 Ill. App. 3d 366, 370, 414 N.E.2d 899, 902.) A finding of no probable cause at a preliminary hearing does not, in itself, bar proceeding on a new information charging the same offense and with a new preliminary hearing. (People v. Overstreet (1978), 64 Ill. App. 3d 287, 289, 381 N.E.2d 305, 306.) This court, in Overstreet, conditioned the validity of a second preliminary hearing upon the absence of harassment, bad faith, or fundamental unfairness.

While argument has been made that the grand jury provides a basic protection to the public which is superior to that of a probable cause hearing, we recognize a fallacy within this position. The drafters of the 1970 Illinois Constitution, when authorizing the General Assembly to abolish the grand jury or further limit its use, did not regard its protection as superior to that afforded by a preliminary hearing. (See Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, §7.) The witnesses before the grand jury are usually called by the State’s Attorney, and defendants seldom have the opportunity to appear to testify or have the right to have counsel present during the grand jury proceedings. Basically, the State’s Attorney is legal counsel to the grand jury, and his influence is obvious. We conclude that proceeding by information at preliminary hearing after a no-true bill is no more a violation of due process than proceeding with an indictment after the finding of no probable cause in a preliminary hearing. The court in Kent stated:

“In our opinion the language of the constitutional provision, as well as the history of its evolution, negates any thought that its purpose was to attach finality to a finding of no probable cause, or to establish mutually exclusive procedures so that grand jury proceedings would be barred if an accused had been discharged upon preliminary hearing.” Kent, 54 Ill. 2d at 163-64, 295 N.E.2d at 712.

The reasoning in Kent equally applies to the present fact situation. We hold that neither the constitutional provision nor the statutory provisions indicate a purpose to attach a finality to a finding of a no-true bill by the grand jury. The State proceeded with the information after the no-true bill and provided a preliminary hearing within the statutory 60-day period. The record does not indicate harassment, bad faith, or fundamental unfairness. The trial court’s decision dismissing count I was erroneous.

Reversed and remanded.

SPITZ and McCULLOUGH, JJ., concur.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DONALD J. CROWE, Defendant-Appellee.
    Fourth District
    No. 4—89—0409
    Opinion filed February 22, 1990.
    Rehearing denied April 20, 1990.

      Richard L. Broch, State’s Attorney, of Tuscola (Kenneth R. Boyle, Robert J. Biderman, and David E. Mannchen, all of State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, of counsel), for the People.
    Mark T. Petty, of Areola, for appellee.
   JUSTICE LUND

delivered the opinion of the court:

On August 26, 1988, defendant Donald Crowe was charged with four traffic violations. On September 12, 1988, an information was filed in the circuit court of Douglas County alleging that, based on the same incident for which he was ticketed, defendant committed the offense of reckless homicide in violation of section 9—3 of the Criminal Code of 1961 (Code) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, par. 9—3). On April 14, 1989, pursuant to defendant’s motions, the court dismissed all the cases for violations of the speedy-trial provisions of the Code. The State now appeals.

Defendant Donald Crowe was charged, on August 26, 1988, by uniform traffic complaint citations with four violations of the Illinois Vehicle Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 95½, par. 1—100 et seq.). These were driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), failure to reduce speed to avoid an accident, driving in the wrong lane, and failure to wear a seat belt. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 95½, pars. 11—501(a), 11—601(a), 11-701, 12-603.1.

On September 6, 1988, defendant, free on bail, appeared with counsel, pleaded not guilty, and filed a written demand for a speedy jury trial pursuant to section 103 — 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, par. 103—5). The written demand was captioned only with the DUI case number. The cases were set for an October 31 jury trial.

On September 12, 1988, defendant was charged by information with committing two counts of the felony offense of reckless homicide. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, par. 9—3.) Count I alleged he caused the death of another by driving at a speed greater than is reasonable and crossing the center line into oncoming traffic while he was under the influence of alcohol. Count II contained the same allegations except for the influence-of-alcohol allegation. Defendant’s initial appearance was on September 27. At all times, he was free on bond.

On October 19, a preliminary hearing was held on the felony. The court found probable cause existed as to count I, but not as to count II. Defendant pleaded not guilty, and the matter was set for a jury trial on January 23, 1989. On October 28, the State requested that the traffic and felony cases be consolidated for trial. Without any objection by the defendant, it was so ordered, with trial being set for January 23.

On January 4, 1989, defendant filed a motion in the felony case, seeking to dismiss the case or, in the alternative, to exclude evidence. The motion was based on the State’s failure to comply with the court’s discovery order. That order, filed October 19, indicated the State was to comply within 21 days. On January 9, the State filed its answer to discovery, listing 14 possible witnesses.

On January 12, the court, upon finding the defendant would not be ready for the January 23 trial date due to the State’s failure to comply with the discovery motion, continued the trial to April 24, upon its own motion.

On March 10, defendant filed -a motion seeking to dismiss the D.UI based upon the violation of a speedy-trial request. The court dismissed this case, but specifically held that this order did not affect the other traffic tickets. Defendant later filed a motion seeking to dismiss the remaining charges, both felony and traffic, based on the State’s failure to comply with the speedy-trial demand of September 6, 1989, made in the DUI case. The court, on April 19, entered a written order dismissing all charges. The State appeals the dismissal of the felony.

The trial court, in determining all the charges should be dismissed, found that all the charges constituted a single prosecution, since they arose from the same conduct and the facts serving as a basis of the offenses were either known, or should have been known, to the State when the initial charges were commenced. It also found that the continuance of the trial from January 23 should not be attributed to defendant, since it was needed due to the State’s failure to comply with the discovery order. The court concluded that all the charges constituted a single prosecution, and “defendant’s written demand for speedy trial by jury filed in cause No. 88—TR—1924, being the first offense charged from the conduct, applied to all charges simultaneously filed or thereafter filed which arose from the same conduct of defendant known to the prosecution at the commencement of the prosecution.” In reaching its decision the court relied on People v. Williams (1981), 94 Ill. App. 3d 241, 418 N.E.2d 840, People v. Rodgers (1982), 106 Ill. App. 3d 741, 435 N.E.2d 963, and section 3— 3 of the Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, par. 3—3).

In Williams, the defendants were charged with rape and deviate sexual assault. On the 120th day following their demand for a speedy trial, the State filed nine new and additional charges against them, which necessitated a three-day continuance. These new charges arose from the same set of circumstances upon which the original charges were based. Defendant sought to have the nine new charges thrown out, as being prosecuted more than 120 days after their speedy-trial demand. The appellate court found the three-day continuance should be attributed to the State and, agreeing with defendants, dismissed the case. In so holding, it stated:

“Where new and additional charges arise from the same facts as did the original charges and the State had knowledge of these facts at the commencement of the prosecution, the time within which trial is to begin on the new and additional charges is subject to the same statutory limitation that is applied to the original charges.” Williams, 94 Ill. App. 3d at 248-49, 418 N.E.2d at 846.

In Rodgers, the court cited the above language approvingly in dismissing a case. Finally, section 3 — 3 of the Code provides in relevant part:

“(a) When the same conduct of a defendant may establish the commission of more than one offense, the defendant may be prosecuted for each such offense.
(b) If the several offenses are known to the proper prosecuting officer at the time of commencing the prosecution and are within the jurisdiction of a single court, they must be prosecuted in a single prosecution, except as provided in Subsection (c), if they are based on the same act.” Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, pars. 3—3(a), (b).

In the present case, the court observed that the decedent died at the scene of the accident. It therefore concluded that these facts were known to the State at the time of the traffic violations, and that all the charges should, therefore, be considered a single prosecution. The court then relied on the language in Williams, and held that the felony charge was susceptible to the same statutory limits as the traffic charges.

While the quoted language in Williams is made without citation, it appears, after review of that case and others, that this proposition is based on application of section 3 — 3. The paragraph which con-tamed the earlier quoted language also includes citations to two other cases helpful to our analysis. These are People v. Parker (1978), 59 Ill. App. 3d 302, 375 N.E.2d 465, and People v. King (1972), 8 Ill. App. 3d 2, 288 N.E.2d 672.

In Parker, the defendant was indicted for bribery and official misconduct in March 1974. In October 1975 he was reindicted for these offenses, plus a count of theft which arose out of the same facts. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, in January 1976, of all charges for speedy-trial violations. It concluded this dismissal also applied to the theft charge since, citing King, that charge “arose from the same set of facts as the other charges, and the State knew of these facts at the time the initial indictment was returned.” (Parker, 59 Ill. App. 3d at 305, 375 N.E.2d at 468.) Parker and Williams were cited in Rodgers for this proposition.

King appears to be the first case to address this comparable fact situation. There, defendant was placed in custody on March 4, 1968, and charged with murder. On October 4, 1968, he was indicted for unlawful use of weapons, which arose out of the same factual setting as the murder. The appellate court concluded the weapons charge should be dismissed. It relied entirely on the compulsory-joinder provisions of section 3 — 3(b) in arriving at that conclusion.

Thus, it appears the basis of the holdings in these cases is the compulsory-joinder provisions of section 3 — 3(b). If the newly charged offenses are known to the State at the time of the original prosecution, and they arise from the same set of facts, then they are subject to the speedy-trial limits that apply to the original charge regardless of when the new charges are filed. In the case at bar, it is clear that the charges arise from the same factual setting and, since the victim died at the scene, the State was aware of these facts at the commencement of the prosecution. Thus, normally, the court’s decision would appear proper.

However, the case at bar has a slight factual distinction which calls for a different result. In the above-discussed cases, the original prosecution was for a felony charged by information or indictment, as were the subsequent charges. In the present case, the original charges were traffic offenses brought by uniform citation and complaint forms, and the subsequent offense was a felony brought by information. While this distinction might, at first blush, appear immaterial, our supreme court’s analysis in People v. Jackson (1987), 118 Ill. 2d 179, 514 N.E.2d 983, indicates otherwise.

There, the defendant was charged by uniform traffic citation and complaint with the offense of DUI. At his initial appearance, he pleaded guilty. Subsequently, the State indicted defendant for the offense of reckless homicide. The question was whether the initial guilty plea barred any further prosecution. The court first concluded the felony prosecution was not barred by the double-jeopardy doctrine. Jackson, 118 Ill. 2d at 191, 514 N.E.2d at 988.

Defendant Jackson’s second contention was that the felony prosecution was barred by the compulsory-joinder statute, since it was not joined with the DUI prosecution. (See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, pars. 3—3, 3—4(b).) In addressing this argument, the court stated:

“Further there is the underlying assumption in the argument that a charge in a traffic ticket is the type of offense referred to in our compulsory-joinder statute (section 3 — 3), which compulsory joinder is then referable to section 3 — 4, which bars further prosecution in certain instances of offenses that should have been joined. We hold today that the compulsory-joinder provisions of section 3 — 3 do not apply to offenses that have been charged by the use of a uniform citation and complaint form provided for traffic offenses. [Emphasis added.] (See 107 Ill. 2d R. 552.) These uniform citation and complaint forms are intended to be used by a police officer in making a charge for traffic offenses and certain misdemeanors and petty offenses. An accused cannot be charged with a felony by the use of a uniform citation form. (People v. Pankey (1983), 94 Ill. 2d 12, 17.) The traffic ticket (uniform citation and complaint) issued by a police officer constitutes a complaint to which a defendant may plead. (People v. Pankey (1983), 94 Ill. 2d 12, 17; Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 38, par. 111—3(b).) All prosecution for felonies must be by information or indictment. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 38, par. 111—2(a).
The language of the compulsory-joinder statute requires joinder of offenses only if the several offenses are known to the proper prosecuting officer at the time of the commencement of the prosecution. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 38, par. 3—3(b).) It is the State’s Attorney who has the responsibility to commence and prosecute all actions in which the people of the State or the county may be concerned. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 14, par. 5(1).) While it is clear from the committee comments that section 3 — 3 was meant to ‘establish an addition to the grounds of double jeopardy in this State’ (Ill. Ann. Stat., ch. 38, par. 3—4, Committee Comments, at 217 (Smith-Hurd 1972)), it is equally clear from the comments to section 3 — 3 that the statute contemplates active involvement by a proper prosecuting officer.
It should be remembered that this statute was written prior to our 1970 Constitution, which established a single unified trial court — the circuit court (Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, sec. 1) — and prior to our rules for traffic and conservation offenses, which were adopted in 1967 (107 Ill. 2d R. 501 et seq.). Therefore, while it is obvious that section 3 — 3 was intended by the legislature to curtail abuses of prosecutorial discretion, it is also obvious that this statute, discussing prosecutions within the jurisdiction of a single court, conducted by proper prosecuting officers, did not contemplate the changes that were to occur in our legal system.” (Emphasis in original unless otherwise noted.) Jackson, 118 Ill. 2d at 192-93, 514 N.E.2d at 988-89.

Thus, it is clear the compulsory-joinder provisions of section 3 — 3 do not apply to the factual situation now before us. Since it is application of this section which is the underpinning of the holdings in Williams and Rodgers, it is also clear these cases are inapplicable.

• Defendant attempts to distinguish Jackson by observing the following sentence to the above-quoted language reads:

“We do not believe that the legislature intended that a driver could plead guilty to a traffic offense on a traffic ticket issued by a police officer and thereby avoid prosecution of a serious offense brought by the State’s Attorney, such as reckless homicide, through the use of sections 3 — 3 and 3 — 4 of the Criminal Code.” (Jackson, 118 Ill. 2d at 193, 514 N.E.2d at 989.)

Accordingly, he maintains the analysis of Jackson should be limited to situations in which a defendant is attempting to bar a subsequent felony prosecution based on a prior traffic adjudication, and it should not apply to cases involving application of the statutory speedy-trial provisions.

However, it does not appear the court intended to so limit its decision. The analysis is premised on the fact that the State’s Attorney is the proper prosecuting officer referred to in section 3 — 3. It is the commencement of prosecution by the State’s Attorney which invokes application of the compulsory-joinder provisions. Therefore, in Jackson this section did not apply until the filing of the reckless homicide charge. This analysis is equally applicable to our present factual situation. It is evident, then, that Jackson does apply to the present situation and, accordingly, the court’s decision to dismiss the felony, based on the speedy-trial demand in the traffic case, is incorrect.

Defendant proposes two alternative grounds for affirming the court’s dismissal order. The first is that he did, in fact, demand a speedy trial on the felony. The second is that dismissal of the DUI ticket requires dismissal of the felony charge.

Defendant observes, in making this second argument, that the State has not appealed the dismissal of the traffic tickets and 30 days have passed. He believes the fact these tickets cannot be reprosecuted bars any prosecution of the felony. It is not entirely clear whether defendant is relying on double jeopardy or section 3 — 3 in his reasoning.

In either case, the question has been resolved by the court in Jackson. There, the court held that neither double jeopardy nor section 3 — 3 barred a reckless homicide prosecution, even though the defendant had pleaded guilty to the underlying DUI charge. We fail to see any reason to deviate from this analysis simply because, rather than being pleaded guilty to, the underlying ticket is dismissed for a speedy-trial violation. Further, double jeopardy would not apply because the question of defendant’s guilt or innocence on the traffic tickets was never submitted to the jury. See People v. Luallen (1989), 188 Ill. App. 3d 862, 544 N.E.2d 1206.

In maintaining that he did make a speedy-trial demand, defendant focuses on the preliminary hearing on October 19. He notes that, after the finding of probable cause, discussion arose concerning trying the felony and traffic cases together. Defense counsel stated:

“Your Honor, I’m not making a motion to combine those cases for purpose of trial. I think it is up to the People to decide if they want to proceed with a trial at this time, and determine whether or not jeopardy attaches or not. But, I’ve got a Demand for Speedy Trial on file and it won’t run by the next jury setting, but I’m not making a motion to consolidate these cases.”

He also observes that section 114 — 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 provides that when charges are consolidated, the “procedure shall be the same as if the prosecution were under a single charge.” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 38, par. 114—7.) He maintains that counsel’s statement, coupled with the fact the causes were consolidated for trial, makes clear that he made his intention to have a speedy trial on the felony known.

However, this court has endeavored to create a bright-line rule by holding that a defendant desiring a speedy trial must make a clear and unequivocal demand for one. As we recently explained:

“Under section 103 — 5, when a defendant is released on bond, a trial demand must be made in order to trigger the running of the speedy trial term. (People v. Monaco (1986), 150 Ill. App. 3d 278, 282, 501 N.E.2d 852, 855.) Where a defendant is at liberty on bond at all times subsequent to the filing of a complaint, the original request for a jury trial cannot be considered a demand for an immediate trial, but only a demand that when the trial is held, it would be before a jury. (People v. Baskin (1967), 38 Ill. 2d 141, 145, 230 N.E.2d 208, 210; Monaco, 150 Ill. App. 3d at 282, 501 N.E.2d at 855.) The trial demand must be clear, unequivocal, and apparent from the record. People v. Althide (1979), 71 Ill. App. 3d 963, 966, 389 N.E.2d 240, 242.
In the present case, a review of the arraignment hearing establishes that no demand for a speedy trial was made, but, rather, defendant indicated he would like a jury trial. The docket entry for that day reads: ‘Def. pleads not guilty and cause placed on Sept. 1988 jury docket.’ A preprinted order form was also filed that day. This form reads: ‘Defendant pleads not guilty & demands jury trial.’
It is apparent, then, that defendant has not made a clear, unequivocal demand for an immediate or speedy trial. Rather, pursuant to Baskin, he has simply indicated a desire to be tried by a jury. If defendant wished to invoke the provisions of section 103 — 5, it would have been a simple matter to demand an immediate or speedy trial pursuant to this section. Short of such a demand, a defendant’s desires are ambiguous, and it will be concluded no speedy trial demand has been made.” People v. Holm (1989), 188 Ill. App. 3d 908, 915, 544 N.E.2d 1237, 1242-43.

The jury trial request in the present case is similarly ineffective in invoking the speedy-trial procedures. It is not the duty of the court, or the State, to attempt to glean from various statements and different pending cases what is defendant’s real desire. If defendant truly desired a speedy trial, he could very easily have specifically asked for one during the quoted discussion. Without such a specific demand, the State is under no obligation to bring defendant to trial within the statutory period.

Accordingly, for the above-mentioned reasons, we reverse the order of the Douglas County circuit court dismissing the reckless homicide charge, and remand the cause for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

SPITZ and GREEN, JJ., concur.