People v. Casas
104 N.E.3d 425
Ill.2017Background
- 1996: Casas indicted for Class X cocaine offense; released on $750,000 bail and posted cash bond.
- June 9, 1998: Casas failed to appear; bail forfeited; bench warrant issued; tried in absentia, convicted and sentenced to 20 years within six months.
- April 5, 2014: Casas arrested after using false IDs; subsequently began serving the 1998 sentence.
- Dec 2014: State charged Casas with violation of bail bond (failure to surrender within 30 days after forfeiture), alleging the offense continued until his 2014 apprehension.
- Trial court dismissed as time‑barred under the 3‑year felony statute of limitations and People v. Grogan; appellate court reversed, holding the offense is continuing; Illinois Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Casas) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether violation of bail bond is a continuing offense | The nature of the offense (like escape/failure to appear) involves a continuing duty to appear, so the limitations period runs from last act (apprehension) | Violation is complete 30 days after forfeiture (statute defines the offense by that single act); Grogan supports this view | Violation of bail bond is a continuing offense; Grogan overruled |
| Whether the prosecution was timely | Because the offense continued until apprehension, the 2014 information was within 3 years of last act | If offense ended when conviction/sentence became final after the 1998 in absentia trial, limitations expired long before 2014 | Although continuing, the court held the duty to appear ended when conviction and sentence became final (1998–1999), so the 2014 filing was time‑barred; case remanded for the State’s alternate fugitive‑residency argument |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394 (U.S. 1980) (escape encompasses both initial departure and failure to return; nature of crime supports continuing‑offense treatment)
- People v. Grogan, 197 Ill. App. 3d 18 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990) (held violation of bail bond is not a continuing offense; expressly overruled)
- People v. Miller, 157 Ill. App. 3d 43 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987) (escape is a continuing offense)
- United States v. Gray, 876 F.2d 1411 (9th Cir. 1989) (failure to appear is a continuing offense because it threatens court integrity)
- United States v. Lopez, 961 F.2d 1058 (2d Cir. 1992) (failure to appear statute’s nature supports treating it as continuing)
- Woolsey v. State, 906 P.2d 723 (Nev. 1995) (bail‑bond violation is a continuing offense; policy reasons against allowing fugitives to evade prosecution)
- People v. Partee, 125 Ill. 2d 24 (Ill. 1988) (judgment of conviction and sentence after trial in absentia is a final order)