from Circuit Court of Adams County No. 14CF488 Honorable
Robert G. Hardwick, Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE STEIGMANN delivered the judgment of the court, with
opinion. Presiding Justice Harris and Justice DeArmond
concurred in the judgment and opinion.
1 In August 2014, an Adams County grand jury indicted
defendant, Curtis T. Lovelace, for first degree murder (720
ILCS 5/9-1(a)(2) (West 2012)). Defendant's first trial
ended in a mistrial because the jury could not reach a
2 Subsequently, the trial court reduced defendant's bail
to $3.5 million. In June 2016, various third parties posted a
$350, 000 cash bond on defendant's behalf to secure his
release pending trial. The trial court ordered electronic
monitoring of defendant as a condition of his release.
3 In September 2016, the trial court granted defendant's
motion to change venue. In March 2017, a Sangamon County jury
found defendant not guilty. The trial court entered an order
releasing defendant from all conditions of his bond but
ordered the circuit clerk to retain the bond "pending an
assessment of applicable costs."
4 Later in March 2017, defendant filed a motion for return of
bond in which he requested that the entire bond should be
returned less the actual costs of electronic monitoring. In
April 2017, the trial court conducted a hearing on the amount
of the bond that should be refunded. Ultimately, the court
ordered the circuit clerk to retain $35, 000, which was 10%
of the posted cash bond and which the court noted was
provided by statute (725 ILCS 5/110-7(f) (West 2016)), and
$5433.75 in electronic monitoring costs.
5 Defendant appeals, raising nonconstitutional and
constitutional challenges. For his nonconstitutional claims,
defendant argues the trial court (1) failed to exercise its
discretion under the statute or (2) abused its discretion by
considering inappropriate factors when it ordered the
retention of 10% of the posted bond. As to his constitutional
claims, defendant argues that the 10% bail bond statute
(id.) (1) is facially unconstitutional; (2) violates
due process because it did not provide for a hearing on
defendant's ability to pay; (3) is unconstitutional as
applied to him, based upon the Supreme Court's holding in
Nelson v. Colorado, 581 U.S., 137 S.Ct. 1249 (2017),
because he was acquitted; (4) violates the equal protection
clause of the federal constitution and the uniformity clause
of the Illinois Constitution; and (5) is an excessive fine in
violation of the eighth amendment of the United States
Constitution and the Illinois Constitution's
proportionate penalty provision. We disagree with all of
these contentions and affirm.
6 I. BACKGROUND
7 A. The State's Charges and the First Trial
8 In August 2014, an Adams County grand jury indicted
defendant on the charge of first degree murder (720 ILCS
5/9-1(a)(2) (West 2012)). The trial court set defendant's
bail at $5 million. Defendant was unable to post bond and
remained in custody through his first trial, which occurred
in February 2016. The jury was unable to reach a unanimous
verdict, and the court declared a mistrial.
9 B. Defendant's Motion To Reduce Bail
10 Later in March 2016, defendant filed a motion to reduce
bail, stating that he had exhausted all of his assets in
defending the first trial. His motion added that "[i]f
the Court were to set a more reasonable bond, there are
friends who would post security *** sufficient to ensure his
release from custody and appearance at trial." In May
2016, the trial court denied his request to reduce bail.
11 In May 2016, defendant filed a "Renewed and Unopposed
Motion to Reduce Bail, " explaining the State did not
oppose a reduction in bond to $3.5 million. Defendant's
motion stated "committed friends and supporters *** are
willing and able to post the cash needed for a $3.5 million
12 In June 2016, the trial court granted defendant's
motion and reduced bail to $3.5 million. As a condition of
release, the court ordered defendant to be confined to his
home, wear an electronic monitoring device, and pay specified
fees associated with electronic monitoring, with payment to
come from the bond.
13 The appearance bond in the record indicates defendant paid
$350, 000 as 10% bond on June 6, 2016. However, the parties
agree-and, as explained below, the trial court found-the cash
bond was in fact paid by third parties.
14 C. Change of Venue and the Second Trial
15 In September 2016, defendant filed a motion for change of
venue. Defendant argued extensive media coverage and his
status in the community had resulted in a tainted jury pool.
The trial court granted the motion and transferred the case
to Sangamon County for trial.
16 In March 2017, after a two-week trial, the jury found
defendant not guilty of first degree murder. The trial court
entered an order releasing defendant from all conditions of
bond but ordered the bond "to be retained by the Adams
County Circuit Clerk pending assessment of applicable
17 D. Proceedings Related to the Return of Bond
18 1. The Trial Court's Proposed Order
19 Approximately two weeks after the acquittal, the court, on
its own initiative, entered an order providing as follows:
"On June 7[, ] 2016, the Defendant had $350,
000.00 cash bond posted for him by others, all without a
bond assignment. The Defendant has been found not guilty in
Sangamon County after a jury trial with that verdict coming
on March 10, 2017.
The bond, after applicable fees, needs to be returned. The
Court proposes that the bond held by the Adams County Circuit
Clerk be returned as in the proposed Order to Refund Bonds
attached as Ex. "A."
A hearing on this matter is scheduled for: April 19, 2017[, ]
at 3:00 pm at the Cass County Courthouse, Virginia, IL.
If any interested party objects to the return of the bond as
proposed in the attached Ex "A" they should file a
written objection with the Adams County Circuit Clerk with a
copy to Judge Bob Hardwick ***."
of the order was sent to the State, defendant, the law firm
of Beckett & Webber, and Rich Herr.
20 The proposed order noted the defendant had bond posted for
him and "Beckett & Webber attorneys[-]Urbana,
IL" paid $300, 000 and Rich Herr paid $50, 000. The
proposed order further stated "[t]he only applicable
fees to be assessed against those sums are the 10% bond fees
plus the electronic monitoring fees of $5433.75 (which have
been paid)." In the order, the court proposed the
"fees/expenses" would be shared pro rata.
Accordingly, the order allocated $30, 000 of the $35, 000
bail bond fee to Beckett & Webber and $5000 to Rich Herr.
In addition, the order calculated Beckett & Webber was
responsible for six-sevenths of the electronic monitoring
fees totaling $4657.50, while Rich Herr bore the remaining
$776.25. The proposed order concluded by directing the clerk
to "refund the balance of the bonds, " as follows:
"Beckett & Weber [sic] $265,
342.50[, ] Rich Herr $44, 223.75."
21 2. Defendant's Motion
22 Defendant filed a motion in March 2017 for return of the
cash bond. In his motion, defendant calculated the costs of
hook-up and monitoring-previously ordered to be paid out of
his bond-to be $5696.25. As such, defendant requested the
court order $344, 303.75 returned to the individuals
who posted the bond on defendant's behalf. His motion did
not contain any substantive arguments.
23 3. The ...