People v. Grogan, 1-88-0165

• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois
• Writing for the Court: LaPORTA
• Citation: 143 Ill.Dec. 730,554 N.E.2d 665,197 Ill.App.3d 18
• Parties: , 143 Ill.Dec. 730 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth GROGAN, Defendant-Appellant.
• Docket Number: No. 1-88-0165,1-88-0165
• Decision Date: 20 April 1990

Page 665

554 N.E.2d 665 197 Ill.App.3d 18, 143 Ill.Dec. 730 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Kenneth GROGAN, Defendant-Appellant. No. 1-88-0165. Appellate Court of Illinois,
First District, Sixth Division. April 20, 1990.

[197 Ill.App.3d 19] Michael J. Pelletier, Deputy Defender, State Appellate Defender, Chicago (Marc Davidson, of counsel), for defendant-appellant.

Cecil A. Partee, State's Atty., Chicago (Inge Fryklund, David Butzen and Joseph Brent, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee.

Presiding Justice LaPORTA delivered the opinion of the court:

Following a bench trial, defendant, Kenneth Grogan, was convicted of violation of bail bond and sentenced to one-year probation and a $500 fine. Defendant raises

Page 666

[143 Ill.Dec. 731] three issues on appeal: (1) whether the indictment was fatally defective because it failed to allege that the violation of bail bond occurred within the period fixed by the statute of limitations; (2) whether defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to file a motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the charge was barred by the statute of limitations; and (3) whether defendant was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt that his failure to surrender was willful.

On October 15, 1987, defendant was indicted on one count of violation of bail bond pertaining to an offense defendant allegedly committed in 1981. The evidence established that on July 16, 1981, defendant was arrested and subsequently charged with theft. Evelyn Skowronek testified that on December 29, 1981, she was deputy court clerk working in Judge Michael Toomin's courtroom in Evanston, Illinois, and she called defendant's name to appear for his case. Defendant did not appear. The judge then issued a bond forfeiture and an arrest warrant for defendant dated December 29. Notice of the bond [197 Ill.App.3d 20] forfeiture was mailed to defendant. On January 29, 1982, judgment was entered on defendant's bond forfeiture.

Dr. Amado Salas testified that on December 18, 1981, he treated defendant for injuries sustained in an automobile accident that occurred on December 16. Defendant complained of amnesia, but the doctor's diagnosis was that defendant suffered from a contusion to the scalp and a brain concussion. Dr. Salas testified that a brain concussion could effect a person's memory for a very brief time, usually a few hours or days. The doctor stated that an electroencephalogram and brain scan were performed on defendant and that the results revealed that defendant was normal as to any organic brain damage. No other tests were conducted to determine if defendant suffered from any memory loss. Defendant was hospitalized from December 18 to December 21. The doctor next saw defendant in his office on December 29, the day on which defendant was to appear in court. His medical record of the visit indicated that defendant was improving and that he was excused from court and work. The doctor could not recall how he came to know that defendant had a court date.

Defendant testified that he did not appear in court on December 29, 1981, because he was not aware of the court date, but that he "had an idea that [he] might have missed something." He indicated that in December 1981, he was represented by an attorney, but that he did not know whether he ever called his attorney to ask when the next court date was scheduled. He further testified that in January 1982, he called the Des Plaines police department to see if he had missed a court date and that he was told that his record was clear. Defendant stated that he called the Des Plaines police department because he lived in that town, despite his knowledge that he was to appear in an Evanston court. According to defendant, he never received notice from the court of his bond forfeiture and that he was...