People v. Evans
2022 IL App (1st) 220240-U
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2022Background:
- Wanda Evans (58) charged with one count of retail theft for allegedly taking about $750 in merchandise past the point of sale; apprehended in the parking lot without confrontation.
- At bond-setting, defense noted Evans lived with her godmother, planned to start a job before arrest, and had only $200 available to post bond.
- Defense counsel described Evans’s lengthy criminal record as "atrocious;" record showed many prior retail-theft felonies, misdemeanor prostitution/theft convictions, several bond forfeitures, and a 2015 conviction for escape from electronic monitoring.
- Trial judge reacted strongly to Evans’s record and set bond at $250,000; Evans filed a verified motion to reconsider arguing the court failed to consider ability to pay and the statutory presumption favoring pretrial release.
- A second judge denied the motion, stating there "really should not be any bail," noting Evans was on parole when the alleged theft occurred and characterizing her actions as "prolific." Evans appealed.
- The appellate court vacated the denial of the motion to reconsider and remanded for reconsideration of less restrictive alternatives (e.g., electronic monitoring) and for consideration of ability to pay, emphasizing the nonviolent, low-harm nature of the current offense.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying bond reduction and refusing less restrictive conditions | State: Bond and detention appropriate given Evans’s extensive criminal history, parole status when offense occurred, and past bond forfeitures; no conditions will assure appearance | Evans: Court failed to consider ability to pay and statutory presumption favoring release; less restrictive conditions (electronic monitoring, lower bond) would suffice | Vacated denial; remanded for reconsideration of less restrictive conditions and ability to pay; court must weigh offense nature and alternatives to high monetary bail |
| Whether reliance on Evans’s criminal history justified the high monetary bond without exploring alternatives | State: Prior offenses and forfeitures show risk that money-only conditions would not assure appearance or public safety | Evans: History does not show offenses more severe than current nonviolent theft; counsel’s characterization should not substitute for focused analysis | Court found history overemphasized relative to nonviolent, low-harm theft; must separately assess severity and length of record and consider electronic monitoring and least restrictive necessary conditions |
Key Cases Cited
- No reported appellate or supreme-court cases are cited in the published opinion.