People v. Hopkins

Defendant was convicted of various offenses. Defendant was reconfined in a DOC facility for violating his MSR and stipulated to that fact prior to trial. Thus, at that time Defendant was no longer serving a period of parole or MSR but instead was committed to DOC for allegedly violating MSR. Commitment includes reconfinement of the accused. A defendant is subject to the speedy-trial statute that applies at the time he makes his speedy-trial demand. DOC transferred custody of Defendant to Whiteside County on 12/2/11, and Defendant did not make a speedy-trial demand until 12/6/11. The 120-day statute applied starting on 12/2/11, absent a demand while Defendant was in the custody of the DOC. Had Defendant made his demand prior to 12/2/11, he would have been subject to the 160-day provision of the Detainer Act given his reconfinement to a DOC facility. As Defendant's speedy-trial rights were not violated, court did not err in dismissing his postconviction petition, as appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise the argument. (CARTER and O'BRIEN, concurring.)