People v. Taylor
985 N.E.2d 648
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Consolidated Illinois appeals concern driving while license revoked with bond forfeiture after defendants failed to appear.
- Taylor faced 08-TR-5334 and 08-CF-427; Moreno faced 06-TR-13159 and 07-CF-17; bond forfeitures were entered for nonappearance.
- Trial court denied motions to dismiss; defendants argued bond forfeiture judgments were convictions for double jeopardy.
- Bond forfeitures under 110-7(g) are civil judgments and not criminal convictions.
- Court held bond forfeiture judgments do not constitute punishment under double jeopardy; enhancement of future punishment is not punishment for purposes of double jeopardy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether bond forfeiture judgments count as convictions for double jeopardy. | Taylor and Moreno contend forfeitures amount to convictions. | Defendants argue these are convictions punishments. | No; forfeitures are civil judgments, not criminal convictions. |
| Whether bond forfeiture under 110-7(g) is a civil remedy and not punishment for double jeopardy. | Bond forfeiture serves to collect a debt, not punish a crime. | Forfeiture could be construed as punishment. | Yes, it is a civil remedy, not punishment. |
| Whether enhancement of future punishments arising from a later conviction implicates double jeopardy. | Enhancement could be seen as punishment for the prior lateness. | Enhancement is unrelated to the bond-forfeiture transaction. | Enhancement of a future punishment is not punishment for double jeopardy. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Bruce, 75 Ill. App. 3d 1042 (1979) (bond forfeiture is a civil judgment)
- People v. Arron, 15 Ill. App. 3d 645 (1973) (bond forfeiture as civil liability separate from criminal offense)
- People v. Ratliff, 65 Ill. 2d 314 (1976) (bond-forfeiture provides civil judgment against defendant)
- United States v. Hawley, 93 F.3d 682 (10th Cir. 1996) (enhancement not punished when tied to bond forfeiture)
- People v. Glowacki, 404 Ill. App. 3d 169 (2010) (distinguishes bond forfeiture from final conviction; not dispositive on double jeopardy issue)
- People v. Smith, 345 Ill. App. 3d 179 (2004) (bond-forfeiture conviction used for sentence enhancement, not directly addressed for double jeopardy here)
- Sienkiewicz, 208 Ill. 2d 1 (2003) (double jeopardy protections)