4
for the criminal matter and not waive his right to a speedy trial. The State again argued that
the filing of the sexually dangerous persons petition "tabled" the criminal case. The
defendant countered that the State could enter a nolle prosequi in the criminal case if it could
not proceed with the sexually dangerous persons petition before the expiration of the 120-
day speedy trial period. The State disagreed, noting that the Act required pending criminal
charges and that the criminal charges would no longer be pending if it entered a nolle
prosequi.
The trial court stated that it had not found any authority which indicated that the filing
of the sexually dangerous persons petition tolled the defendant's statutory speedy trial rights
on the underlying criminal charges. The trial court concluded that, in the absence of case
law, it was going to err "on the side of protecting the speedy trial demand." Therefore, the
court found that the filing of the sexually dangerous persons petition did not toll the running
of the defendant's statutory speedy trial period. The State told the court that it would be
ready to proceed with a trial on the sexually dangerous persons petition on the scheduled
February 26, 2007, trial date. The defendant argued that since the trial court had just denied
his motion to dismiss, he needed time to answer the sexually dangerous persons petition and
conduct discovery before a trial on the sexually dangerous persons petition.
At the conclusion of the February 15, 2007, hearing, the circuit court set the criminal
case for a jury trial on March 26, 2007, which the court determined to be timely under the
defendant's statutory speedy trial rights. The court also stated that the State had the right to
a trial on the sexually dangerous persons petition prior to a trial on the criminal charges.
Therefore, the trial court stated that it would accommodate a trial on the sexually dangerous
persons petition prior to a trial on the criminal charges. The court granted the defendant's
motion to continue the February 26, 2007, trial setting on the sexually dangerous persons
petition, and the court reset the matter for a scheduling conference on February 20, 2007.
