# People v. Bailey

> Appellate Court of Illinois · October 5, 2010 · 344 Ill. Dec. 708

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9779824

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER BAILEY, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Appellate Court of Illinois
- **Decided:** October 5, 2010
- **Citations:** 344 Ill. Dec. 708; 405 Ill. App. 3d 154; 937 N.E.2d 731; 2010 Ill. App. LEXIS 1065
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Wright
- **Judges:** Carter, Wright, McDade
- **Cited by:** 19 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9779824

## Opinion text

JUSTICE WRIGHT, specially concurring:
In this appeal, the record does not demonstrate that Bailey objected when the trial court scheduled matters related to the civil petition on the same date as matters related to the pretrial criminal proceedings. Nor does it appear to me that Bailey included this issue in his posttrial motion requesting a new trial on the sexually-dangerous-person petition. Instead, the record suggests the parties mutually participated in the simultaneous pretrial proceedings without objection. Thus, I respectfully conclude that the issue has been waived and was not properly preserved for our review.
However, assuming this issue of simultaneous pretrial proceedings has not been waived, I agree that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in this case. Finally, after considering all of the evidence introduced by the State during trial on the State’s sexually-dangerous-person petition alone, in the light most favorable to the State, I share the author’s view regarding the sufficiency of the State’s evidence in this case.
Therefore, I agree that the trial court’s decision, declaring Bailey to be a sexually dangerous person as defined by the Act, must be affirmed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9779824. Public record. Not legal advice.