section 114-1 grounds enumerated in Illinois

2024This inherent power includes authority to dismiss an indictment where there has been a “clear denial of due process even though that is not a stated ground in section 114-1.” Lawson, 67 Ill. 2d at 455 . ¶ 33 We have cautioned, however, that when courts are asked to dismiss an indictment based on the denial of due process, the courts “must proceed with restraint and ascertain preindictment denial of due process only with certainty.” (Emphasis added.) Id. at 457 .

2024This inherent power includes authority to dismiss an indictment where there has been a “clear denial of due process even though that is not a stated ground in section 114-1.” Lawson, 67 Ill. 2d at 455 . ¶ 33 We have cautioned, however, that when courts are asked to dismiss an indictment based on the denial of due process, the courts “must proceed with restraint and ascertain preindictment denial of due process only with certainty.” (Emphasis added.) Id. at 457 .

2013We have interpreted Rule 604(a) as “not intended to reduce the State’s right of appeal to only those grounds enumerated in section 114-1[;] *** [r]ather, the State has the right to appeal from ‘any judgment the substantive effect of which resulted in the dismissal of an indictment, information or complaint.’ ” People v. Boyt, 109 Ill. 2d 403, 411 (1985) (quoting People v. Love, 39 Ill. 2d 436, 439 (1968)).

1980It is, of course, true that the grounds enumerated in section 114-1 are not exclusive, and that there may be an appeal by the State from a dismissal on other grounds where the substantive effect of the judgment or order results in dismissing the charge. ( People v. Love (1968), 39 Ill.2d 436, 438-40 (right to a speedy trial); People v. Lawson (1977), 67 Ill.2d 449, 454-57 (preindictment delay).) In other words dismissal of a charge may be appropriate for reasons which amount to a violation of due process other than some defect in the complaint or indictment.

2015Perhaps conceding this point, the State nonetheless contends that our supreme court has held that Rule 604(a)(1) "was not intended to reduce the State's right of appeal to only those grounds enumerated in section 114-1." People v. Boyt, 109 Ill. 2d 403, 411 (1985) (citing People v. Lawson, 67 Ill. 2d 449, 455 (1977)).

2015Perhaps conceding this point, the State nonetheless contends that our supreme court has held that Rule 604(a)(1) “was not intended to reduce the State’s right of appeal to only those grounds enumerated in section 114-1.” People v. Boyt, 109 Ill. 2d 403, 411 (1985) (citing People v. Lawson, 67 Ill. 2d 449, 455 (1977)).

2026People v. Love, 39 Ill. 2d 436, 439 (1968); People v. Harris, 68 Ill.

2021See People v. Scholin, 62 Ill. 2d 372, 373 (1975); 5 see also People v. Heddins, 66 Ill. 2d 404, 406 (1977) (“It is *** obvious that the order which held defendant to bail and contemplated ‘further proceedings in this cause’ did not effect the dismissal of the charge.”). “[W]here the trial court *** orders that the defendant be held on bond pending further proceedings [citation], the intent to dismiss the charge is negated by the court's contemplation of further proceedings, and thus such an order is not appealable.” People v. Harris, 68 Ill. App. 3d 12, 15-16 (1979). ¶ 17 Here, when the trial

2023People v. Young, 82 Ill. 2d 234, 247-48 (1980).

2007Supreme Court Rule 604(a)(1) provides: “In criminal cases the State may appeal only from an order or judgment the substantive effect of which results in dismissing a charge for any of the grounds enumerated in section 114-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963; arresting judgment because of a defective indictment, information or complaint; quashing an arrest or search warrant; suppressing evidence; decertifying a prosecution as a capital case on the grounds enumerated in section 9-1(h-5) of the Criminal Code of 1961; or finding that the defendant is mentally retarded after a hearing condu

2021See In the Interest of Pryor, 111 Ill.

2021See In re Pryor, 111 Ill. App. 3d 851, 853 (1982); see also Lawson, 67 Ill. 2d at 455 (“a trial court does have an inherent authority to dismiss an indictment in a criminal case where there has been a clear denial of due process even though that is not a stated ground in section 114-1”); Marbly, 85 Ill. App. 3d at 937 (1980) (allowing State to appeal trial court order denying reinstatement of case even though it is not listed in section 114- 1). ¶ 16 An order does not have the substantive effect of dismissing the criminal charges against a defendant where (1) the defendant is still subject to

2020The supreme court has made clear that the trial court has “inherent authority to dismiss an indictment in a criminal case where there has been a clear denial of due process even though that is not a stated ground in section 114-1.” (Emphasis added.) People v. Lawson, 67 Ill. 2d 449, 455 (1977); see also People v. Stapinski, 2015 IL 118278, ¶ 33 (“[A] trial court has the inherent authority to dismiss an indictment in a criminal case for any reason given in section 114-1 *** or where there has been a clear denial of due process.”). -6- ¶ 21 “To support a claim that an indictment should be dismis

2020The supreme court has made clear that the trial court has “inherent authority to dismiss an indictment in a criminal case where there has been a clear denial of due process even though that is not a stated ground in section 114-1.” (Emphasis added.) People v. Lawson, 67 Ill. 2d 449, 455 (1977); see also People v. Stapinski, 2015 IL 118278, ¶ 33 (“[A] trial court has the inherent authority to dismiss an indictment in a criminal case for any reason given in section 114-1 *** or where there has been a clear denial of due process.”). ¶ 21 “To support a claim that an indictment should be dismissed

2015Quoting People v. Norris, 214 Ill. 2d 92, 104 (2005), the State asserts that "when a nolle prosequi is entered before jeopardy attaches, the State is entitled to refile the charges against the defendant." The State also relies on People v. McCutcheon, 68 Ill. 2d 101 (1977), for its contention that it is entitled to reinstate the nol-prossed counts when "there [was] no finding on the nolle'd counts." ¶ 12 Pursuant to Rule 604(a)(1), our jurisdictional authority exists in an appeal brought by the State only if the order or judgment at issue has the "substantive effect" of dismissing a charge on

2015Quoting People v. Norris, 214 Ill. 2d 92, 104 (2005), the State asserts that “when a nolle prosequi is entered before jeopardy attaches, the State is entitled to refile the charges against the defendant.” The State also relies on People v. McCutcheon, 68 Ill. 2d 101 (1977), for its contention that it is entitled to reinstate the nol-prossed counts when “there [was] no finding on the nolle’d counts.” ¶ 12 Pursuant to Rule 604(a)(1), our jurisdictional authority exists in an appeal brought by the State only if the order or judgment at issue has the “substantive effect” of dismissing a charge on

2023Since our supreme court has instructed reviewing courts to be certain of their jurisdiction prior to addressing an appeal (see People v. Smith, 228 Ill. 2d 95, 106 , 885 N.E.2d 1053, 1059 (2008)), we begin by addressing defendant’s argument. -6- ¶ 16 Rule 604(a)(1) addresses when the State may appeal and provides the following: “In criminal cases the State may appeal only from an order or judgment the substantive effect of which results in dismissing a charge for any of the grounds enumerated in section 114-1 of the [Procedure Code]; arresting judgment because of a defective indictment, inform

2023Since our supreme court has instructed reviewing courts to be certain of their jurisdiction prior to addressing an appeal (see People v. Smith, 228 Ill. 2d 95, 106 , 885 N.E.2d 1053, 1059 (2008)), we begin by addressing defendant’s argument. -6- ¶ 16 Rule 604(a)(1) addresses when the State may appeal and provides the following: “In criminal cases the State may appeal only from an order or judgment the substantive effect of which results in dismissing a charge for any of the grounds enumerated in section 114-1 of the [Procedure Code]; arresting judgment because of a defective indictment, inform

2021See In re Pryor, 111 Ill. App. 3d 851, 853 (1982); see also Lawson, 67 Ill. 2d at 455 (“a trial court does have an inherent authority to dismiss an indictment in a criminal case where there has been a clear denial of due process even though that is not a stated ground in section 114-1”); Marbly, 85 Ill. App. 3d at 937 (1980) (allowing State to appeal trial court order denying reinstatement of case even though it is not listed in section 114- 1). ¶ 16 An order does not have the substantive effect of dismissing the criminal charges against a defendant where (1) the defendant is still subject to

2021See In re Pryor, 111 Ill. App. 3d 851, 853 (1982); see also Lawson, 67 Ill. 2d at 455 (“a trial court does have an inherent authority to dismiss an indictment in a criminal case where there has been a clear denial of due process even though that is not a stated ground in section 114-1”); Marbly, 85 Ill. App. 3d at 937 (1980) (allowing State to appeal trial court order denying reinstatement of case even though it is not listed in section 114- 1). ¶ 16 An order does not have the substantive effect of dismissing the criminal charges against a defendant where (1) the defendant is still subject to

2021“In a criminal case the State may appeal only as permitted by Supreme Court Rule 604(a).” People v. Johnson, 113 Ill. App. 3d 367, 370 (1983). ¶ 13 Supreme Court Rule 604(a)(1) provides: “In criminal cases the State may appeal only from an order or judgment the substantive effect of which results in dismissing a charge for any of the grounds enumerated in section 114-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963; arresting 3 judgment because of a defective indictment, information or complaint; quashing an arrest or search warrant; or suppressing evidence.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(a)(1) (eff.

2021See People v. Scholin, 62 Ill. 2d 372, 373 (1975); 5 see also People v. Heddins, 66 Ill. 2d 404, 406 (1977) (“It is *** obvious that the order which held defendant to bail and contemplated ‘further proceedings in this cause’ did not effect the dismissal of the charge.”). “[W]here the trial court *** orders that the defendant be held on bond pending further proceedings [citation], the intent to dismiss the charge is negated by the court's contemplation of further proceedings, and thus such an order is not appealable.” People v. Harris, 68 Ill. App. 3d 12, 15-16 (1979). ¶ 17 Here, when the trial

2021See People v. Scholin, 62 Ill. 2d 372, 373 (1975); 5 see also People v. Heddins, 66 Ill. 2d 404, 406 (1977) (“It is *** obvious that the order which held defendant to bail and contemplated ‘further proceedings in this cause’ did not effect the dismissal of the charge.”). “[W]here the trial court *** orders that the defendant be held on bond pending further proceedings [citation], the intent to dismiss the charge is negated by the court's contemplation of further proceedings, and thus such an order is not appealable.” People v. Harris, 68 Ill. App. 3d 12, 15-16 (1979). ¶ 17 Here, when the trial

2020The supreme court has made clear that the trial court has “inherent authority to dismiss an indictment in a criminal case where there has been a clear denial of due process even though that is not a stated ground in section 114-1.” (Emphasis added.) People v. Lawson, 67 Ill. 2d 449, 455 (1977); see also People v. Stapinski, 2015 IL 118278, ¶ 33 (“[A] trial court has the inherent authority to dismiss an indictment in a criminal case for any reason given in section 114-1 *** or where there has been a clear denial of due process.”). ¶ 21 “To support a claim that an indictment should be dismissed

2020The supreme court has made clear that the trial court has “inherent authority to dismiss an indictment in a criminal case where there has been a clear denial of due process even though that is not a stated ground in section 114-1.” (Emphasis added.) People v. Lawson, 67 Ill. 2d 449, 455 (1977); see also People v. Stapinski, 2015 IL 118278, ¶ 33 (“[A] trial court has the inherent authority to dismiss an indictment in a criminal case for any reason given in section 114-1 *** or where there has been a clear denial of due process.”). ¶ 21 “To support a claim that an indictment should be dismissed

2019Atchison, 2019 IL App (3d) 180183 , ¶ 13 (citing People v. Schroeder, 102 Ill.

2007Supreme Court Rule 604(a)(1) provides: “In criminal cases the State may appeal only from an order or judgment the substantive effect of which results in dismissing a charge for any of the grounds enumerated in section 114-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963; arresting judgment because of a defective indictment, information or complaint; quashing an arrest or search warrant; suppressing evidence; decertifying a prosecution as a capital case on the grounds enumerated in section 9-1(h-5) of the Criminal Code of 1961; or finding that the defendant is mentally retarded after a hearing condu