tried and sentenced in his absence if you are fair if you fail to appear in court although all the warnings in this case do not come from the trial court itself the prophylactic function of the statute was achieved because the defendant actually received the warnings themselves in this case the bonce looked at the defendant sign expressively one ten that his failure to appear would constitute a waiver of his right to confront when this is against him and then he could be tried and sentenced in his absence by signing  document in the presence of a clerk of the circuit court who also signed uncertified at the defendant attested that he understood that he accepted its terms and conditions as well as the consequences for his failure to appear at trial is there any testimony it indicates that this was what it was explained to him how it was explained to him as the course not set forth in the record but what's important is that the balance of itself indicates that that was accomplished that that was that was done in this case a four level formality if it's attested to by a witness which it was in this case including that the defendant could be sentenced and tried and sentenced in his absence if you failed to appear that is sufficient and in this case that was done the defendant there was a level of formality and accompanying this bond this wasn't a situation where the the defendant was just told here sign this you know get out of jail this is a formal procedure where boxes are checked and information is filled out the defendant signs it it's explained clearly explained to him because it says right there on the bond the bond that this was explained to him and that he indicated that he understood its terms and conditions examines statutes for a substantial compliance and in this situation you have you clearly have a lack of strict compliance because the admonishment didn't come from the trial judge himself or herself but you particular bond or even more comprehensive than the what's required by the statute and i think that's of particular note in this case where the defendant fled during the jury deliberations he was there for the entire trial he fled during deliberations and the only proceeding that he was not present for was sentencing but in this court although it's not even required by the statute he was specifically admonished and that he could be sentenced to reach with first time the second one thirty forty it's not acknowledge our procedural to fault we knowledge that it was not include specifically included in our petition for leave to appeal and we apologize for that we're asking this court to excuse that procedural default for  variety of reasons and not the least of which is that this the issue of whether or not the bond slip in this case can satisfy that the purpose and the function of the statute is inextricably intertwined with the issue of whether or not the  representative of the people that it's attorney's office has responsibility as well in court you see what is happening you think that's your responsibility as well to raise these issues and not come to this court seeking that i think it's important to point out that the people were the apple e in the appellate court now and the issue was first raised by the defendant himself saying that he was not advised he wasn't admonished but as it turns out that actually was not true and when the record was originally compiled including that well most notably the common law record it did include the sponsorship and that was not made part of the record that wasn't a failure on the part of the state as the apple  compile the record on appeal and it wasn't only until after this case was pending before this court for the first time two years ago that that the state identify that document that casts serious doubt on the defendant's original claim so i would say in the sense that it was not brought off before in the trial court or before the appellate court the first time around that shouldn't be that the state shouldn't be penalized for the failure to identify the document earlier on in fact it was first was the case was first before the the i mean this really when it was in the trial court the defendant never raised the issue he himself never raised the issue indicated that i was never admonished i this is a surprise to me that i'm shocked but why should the defendant i just as freeman say it said you have to do that because the statute is clear section one thirteen dash four c state states that the court must advise the defendant that he may be tried in specifically indicated or intimated that a comprehensive bond slip could could be the inadequate substitute for the in court admonishment this court did that in people versus garner where it contemplated a quote set of circumstances that could satisfy the statute and in that case the the deficiency of the bonds up in that case was that it did not it minus the defendant that he could be tried good authority that would indicate that substantial compliance would be had in a situation such as the instant one where the boss left includes all the required warnings so in this case it's it really comes down to a question of form over function and this case the defendant admonishments indicated by signing and the testing that he got the it in management's what or not the vehicle for those warnings came from the trial court or some other source or another formal vehicle for that in the form of a bond is as i said as a matter of form over over substance i think it's also important i'm your and your question just as the the this court didn't simply say that the bond slip isn't in their absence but this court didn't didn't draw that distinction the the it point instead of just merely pointed to that other statute that actually recognizes that possibility in fact that the statute in errors state of arizona actually in its committee notes in the case that on the bond form it would be helpful if the bond form actually indicated that the defendant could be tried in his absence and in illinois that's exactly what we have i think it's important to note that that in people versus garner this court had already contemplated that a set of circumstances and they used the terms of the the that the actual language and garner had you know  could recognize whether or not there are a set of circumstances that will result in the waiver of the defendant's right to receive the statutory admonishment so that had already been established so the question when this court case was was remanded to the appellate court was to go one step further and to see whether or not the bond slip in this case could be the adequate substitute for a functional equivalent of the in court admonishments in the the appellate court in people versus condon which is the only that will suffice to legitimize the trial and sanch is the language they use in this case what could be more proof of admonition than the defendant signature on a document indicating all of the the warning set forth in the statute and on that point it bears noting that this court and appellate courts have long held that the defendant's that an individual signature on a document is prime acacias evidence that that document was knowingly understandingly executed with the knowledge and awareness of its terms so a defendant colonel defendant is always charged with knowledge of the conditions of his bond so why should it be any different in a situation why should davis why should the post court courts excuse knowledge of the defendants the fact that he can be tried in his absence when that was explicitly set forth in the bond and you pull court on this on this issue it's found that that indicates that the defendant can be tried in his absence is adequate proof of his awareness of the conditions of bond and it's also adequate proof of his will for willful failure to appear so the boncelles should be no no less effectual stablish ing the defendant's knowledge that he can be tried in his absence if it can be it can suffice to commence new and separate criminal proceedings another violation of bail bond statute the the purpose of the statute it's a prophylactic measure this court has repeatedly referred to the section one thirteen for each as a prophylactic measure is to dissuade defendants from of scanning before or after trial and to serv a waiver of their right to appear at trial this court has also examined the legislative history of the statute and declare that the primary person purpose is to prevent bail jumping and to promote the speedy satisfaction of judgment so in a situation where the defendant executes a form that explains fully in writing that he can be tried and sentenced in his absence the prophylactic function of the so for all those reasons and for those reasons explained in our briefs we ask that this court to reverse the appellate court and to affirm the defendant's sense thank you well under the rules of statutory construction it here is to be a statutory requirement that did must come from the court it's called for it's in the plain language of the statute and it's that arraignment this court also held that where the defendant is present at arraignment in the trial court does not admonish the defendant at that time the define the defendant will not be found to have forfeited the right to be a then this court would be issuing a decision that basically says that a defendant should be permitted to sign a form specifically acknowledging all of the consequences of lien h this court should should uphold the intent intention of roger slater with regard to this issue the bond at issue in this case if you look at it certain documents that is primarily concerned with the bond provider  there are a half a dozen places on the front of the bond slip or the bond provider has to initial the bond provider has to sign in the front of the document the clerk signature is underneath the signature of the bond provider not of the defendant be there later similar to deed must once here is on the back of the bond so that there is certainly contrary to what what the state has argued there is no evidence whatsoever that the defendant ever looked at the back of at the bond so there's no evidence that the defendant was lit literate able to read there's no evidence that anyone explained any of any of the terms of slip to to the defendant and and there's there's no evidence that anything that happened at all other then the defendant was said your bond has been paid signed here and you may go home there's no evidence that the defendant this is not a situation where where we have defendants negotiating they were there the terms of of their their bail this is a situation where the the legislature has carefully balanced  rights to be present as well as the court's interests what you said earlier we don't know if the defendant already knew it said but if the defendant left the state of illinois without permission of court  violation of a bond slip the last thing i would be asking him whether or not he understood when he signed it that he was required to remain within defendant's absence if the defendant has not validly believes his appearance according to the statu not affect this court's interpretation of whether the admonishment requirement has been has been satisfied and people restore honor the state asked very similarly as as they did here for an exception to be created therefore experienced criminals who presumably would have had knowledge of the consequences of failure to appear this court rejected that finding that knowledge of the law does not equate to the waiver to a situation where escapees are given an elevated level of protection in so far as proceedings would not be able to continue against them if they were not admonished by the trial court court satisfy the statutory requirements but also because fewer defendants would be in fact away or that proceedings could continue in their  court could go forward against escapees but not against her could not go forward against it it's part of therefore whether whether the bouncer in arizona provides this information to the defendant is is not relevant to whether the statute has been complied with here as far as the question of strict compliance or substantial compliance here there has been no compliance because the trial court did not admonish the defendant at all of the possibility of trying to censure people  a statutory construction however finding a step substantial compliance with the statute has never required this court to depart from the plain language of the statute or to read into exceptions and on the contrary what what this court would simply be doing by finding a substantial compliance would be finding as it has done on a numeral a memorable occasions that the function of the statute has been achieved and then the to use the language of split versus split the purposes of the statute were satisfied because the defining defendant had actual knowledge of the proceedings and we do not construe the performance of an empty formality when the legislative intent has been otherwise achieved so that's that's one substantial compliance fits the bill on that and i would argue that that fits the bill in this case and people are yes they're asking us too it's is strictly bias was that in this case under the facts of this case the deputy the the issue really turns on whether the defendant receive the admonishment or he didn't and in this case he clearly did whether he received them from the judge from his attorney in and i'm and i'm just freeman's  court must give all of all of the four zero issues now a situation where has the defense attorney did all of that there would clearly be substantial compliance under under for thirty one b but there wouldn't be strict compliance because it wasn't the judge but in that case the potential jurors receive all of those their principles and indicated that they acknowledged and they accepted them through a different format i think this is analogous in this case where the defendant received the the warnings but what this court in garner was referring to when it said there is no exemption was explicitly referring to an entire category of defendants those veteran offenders whose criminal experience would imply that they knew their rights well this isn't an exception garner would be required if this court were to reverse the appellate court in this case that is that is far far from true the the languaging gone or actually said we're not prepared to say that there's no set of circumstances under which a defendant will be deemed to have waived his rights admonishments and then people versus condon you poll quote identified what they describe as the open question left after after governor garner simply said that this is not that case well this is that case this is that that answer to that open that that the appellate court identified and people versus condon the the the admonishments that are required by the statute were given to this defendant and with the knowledge that he could be that in a sense putting the onus on the state to to to remind the judge that you know to to give these warnings the state is not taking a position nor would we ever take the position that these were warnings should not be given they must be given it's an obligation on the trial court to give the the warnings our our only position our only statement is that in a situation where the warnings were actually given and when the defendant actually indicates in writing cannot that he understands and exceptions accepts them there's no prejudice there's no harm and those are the facts of this case so again while the the warnings clearly there are obligatory they have to be given judges must give them that the question is presented in this case is what is the remedy in the remedy is that where the defendant actually got the warning is in question he's not entitled to reversal because he actually was informed of all that information that's required by law th time the defendant is released with it with a definite clear present this processing these these pretrial releases however i think it's important to note that this document is made part of the court file and this case it was filed stamped and made part obviously as part of doesn't appear which is what happened in this case and that's when the j b s stamp is placed on there so i would i would suggest that the signature of the lack of the judge's actual signatures is of no no no meant  i'm aware of your honor that's that was when the defendant posted bond it was not a court date thank you thank you thank you