Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The People of the State of Illinois v. Pamela Williams

July 25, 2012

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
PAMELA WILLIAMS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
ARWOOD K. EDWARDS, APPELLANT.



Appeal from the Circuit Court of Du Page County. No. 10-CF-2421 Honorable ) John J. Kinsella, Judge,Presiding.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Justice Schostok

JUSTICE SCHOSTOK delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

Presiding Justice Jorgensen and Justice Hutchinson concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION

¶ 1 After Arwood K. Edwards posted a $50,000 bail bond for the defendant, Pamela K. Williams, the defendant pleaded guilty to 10 counts of theft and was ordered to pay $1.8 million in restitution. The trial court ordered that Edwards' $50,000 bail bond money be applied to the defendant's restitution. Edwards and the defendant appeal from that order, arguing that the bail bond money should have been returned to Edwards. We affirm.

¶ 2 The defendant was charged in Du Page County with 10 counts of theft. Edwards, the defendant's brother-in-law, provided bail money for the defendant in the amount of $50,000. On December 8, 2010, Edwards signed a bail bond form that included a boxed-off section with the heading: "NOTICE TO PERSON PROVIDING BAIL BOND OTHER THAN THE DEFENDANT." (Emphasis in original.) Below the heading, the form stated:

"I hereby acknowledge that I have posted bail for the defendant named above. I further understand that the bail may be used to pay the defendant's attorney's fees, fines, costs, fees or restitution to the victim and that I may lose all, or part of my money or property. I further understand that if the defendant fails to comply with the conditions of the bail bond, the court shall enter an order declaring the bail to be forfeited." (Emphasis in original.)

Edwards' signature, printed name, address, and telephone number appeared below this text, within the boxed-off section.

¶ 3 Before Edwards signed the form, the trial court held a hearing to determine the source of the funds pursuant to section 110-5(b-5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/110-5(b-5) (West 2010)). The record shows that Edwards was present at that hearing. The defendant's attorney produced records to show that the money Edwards used to pay the bail bond was not a product of the defendant's alleged criminal acts. At the hearing, the defendant's attorney stated:

"MR. THOMAS [defense counsel]: Judge, also so that the record is clear, I have informed Edwards that in the event that the defendant is convicted of any of the pending charges, that the funds *** posted as bond could be used to satisfy any orders of restitution, fines, court costs, and other fees.

THE COURT: Yes. That is the case."

After the hearing, Edwards signed the bail bond form and provided the money, and the defendant was released on bond.

¶ 4 On April 4, 2011, the defendant pleaded guilty to the theft charges. On June 20, 2011, the defendant made a motion to exonerate the bond, and the trial court determined that the issue should be resolved after sentencing. On June 21, 2011, the defendant was sentenced to prison and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $1.8 million.

ΒΆ 5 On August 8, 2011, there was a hearing on the defendant's motion to exonerate the bond. The defendant's attorney read a statement on behalf of Edwards that said that when he posted the bond the defendant had pleaded not guilty, and Edwards believed that the defendant was innocent. The statement went on to say that, if Edwards had known that the defendant was guilty, he would not have provided the bail money. The defendant's attorney argued that it would be a travesty to take money from a third party who was not involved in the crimes. He additionally argued that, because Edwards had recently injured himself and had a severely disabled son, the trial court should consider these personal circumstances in determining whether equity ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.