People v. Moore, 990 N.E.2d 1264

Defendant Jarmarco Moore pled guilty to two counts of burglary and received probation.
Probation was revoked, and the circuit court sentenced him to four years in prison.
At resentencing the court stated bond should apply first to restitution but left the restitution portion blank.
Original restitution was $517 to Azura Boutique and $2,700 to Brom’s Furs, later reduced to $517 to Azura.
The State sought to apply bond first to restitution; Moore appeals challenging the restitution and bond ordering.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a new restitution order existed after probation revocation	Moore’s revocation required a new order; the original restarted.	The court intended a new restitution order by discussing it at sentencing and the State’s request.	Yes; the current order effectively creates restitution.
Whether Brom’s Furs restitution was legally unsupported	Brom’s Furs restitution was part of the plea agreement.	No valid agreement to pay Brom’s Furs restitution.	Reduced Brom’s Furs restitution to $517 to Azura Boutique.
Whether bond may be applied to restitution before costs	Bond allocation to restitution was permissible under the court’s discretion.	Statute requires bond be applied to costs first.	Void to apply bond to restitution before costs; bond must first pay court costs/fines.

People v. Gutierrez, 2012 IL 111590 (Illinois Supreme Court, 2012) (restitution order can be attacked if void)
People v. Felton, 385 Ill. App. 3d 802 (Ill. App. 3d, 2008) (restitution/plea-based payment limitations)
People v. McNett, 361 Ill. App. 3d 444 (Ill. App. 3d, 2005) (probation revocation ends original restitution terms)
People v. Owens, 323 Ill. App. 3d 222 (Ill. App. 3d, 2001) (restitution requires agreement to pay for conduct)
People v. Resnick, 373 Ill. App. 3d 163 (Ill. App. 3d, 2007) (court may allocate bond to restitution after costs)
People v. Sweeney, 2012 IL App (3d) 100781 (Ill. App. 3d, 2012) (bond-to-restitution-first analysis validity)