Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer

(Download) "Quality Wood Products Corp. v. Ind. Com." by Supreme Court of Illinois * eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free

Quality Wood Products Corp. v. Ind. Com.

๐Ÿ“˜ Read Now     ๐Ÿ“ฅ Download


eBook details

  • Title: Quality Wood Products Corp. v. Ind. Com.
  • Author : Supreme Court of Illinois
  • Release Date : January 23, 1983
  • Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
  • Pages : * pages
  • Size : 73 KB

Description

George Maya and Mario Maya were indicted in the circuit court of Cook County for the illegal possession and delivery of cocaine and methaqualone. On the third day of their bench trial, the prosecution and defense had completed the presentation of evidence when the court called a recess in preparation for hearing closing arguments. When the court reconvened five minutes later, the defendants were absent from the courtroom. After a time, the defendants not appearing, the trial proceeded with the defendants in absentia under section 115 รข€” Page 284 4.1(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 38, par. 115-4.1(a); People v. Flores (1984), 104 Ill.2d 40). The defendants were found guilty, and the court, after forfeiting their bonds and issuing bench warrants for their arrest, set the case for a sentencing hearing. The defendants did not appear at the sentencing hearing, and each was given in absentia a 12-year sentence. Following this, the trial court ordered the allowance of attorney fees from the forfeited cash bond deposits. The court then entered bond-forfeiture judgments in favor of the State in the amount of the balance in the bond deposit and two judgments for the State in the amount of the appearance bonds. The State appealed to the appellate court contending that section 110-7(h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 38, par. 110-7(h)) (since relettered to subparagraph (g) by Public Act 83-336), required that the trial court forfeit to the State the entire amount of the bond deposits, less costs, and that the allowance of attorney fees was error. The appellate court affirmed the order awarding fees but vacated the fee awards themselves and remanded to the circuit court for a hearing on the reasonableness of the fees. (119 Ill. App.3d 961.) We granted the States petition for leave to appeal under our Rule 315(a) (87 Ill.2d 315 (a)).


Books Free Download "Quality Wood Products Corp. v. Ind. Com." PDF ePub Kindle