to bail conditions commits the offense of escape by failing to abide by those bail conditions and for several reasons this course should conclude no that escape doesn't apply under these particular circumstances the statutory language of the escape statute itself indicates that its own call is to address the dangers associated with the seating either from constructive or physical custody the sacchi component of the estates actually the class three component the failure to return to jail all of those conditions relate to a defendant sentence and in fact the legislative history that as the illinois supreme court and camp acknowledged the scope of the statute over the years has expanded to include the nontraditional forms of punishment evolve with the changing terms of detention but the underlying fact remains the same that those conditions all relate to a sentence of imprint of punishment so for example work release and follow was added  specifically to fix the loophole that was still in existence in the escape statute when a person who had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment was released on work release or furlough again when the failure to report to jail condition was added to these deeds statute it was added for a report to jail after being sentenced in the same applied to the home confinement situation all of this language indicates that scar on her own recognizance and so the court had to find that she was not a teacher in order to release her on bail that she failed to return to jail upon leaving  the drug treatment facility was not an act of the state it was a violation of bail it was a violation of her b obama conditions the legislature never contemplated that this type of conduct be punished under the state's statute and while there's no specific case law on point there are a few cases that shed light on this court's analysis in support of our argument like i mentioned before the only supreme court in camp discussed what it means to be in custody really important in the illinois supreme court's analysis in determining whether that individual was in custody or not and determined that he was in custody because the trial court did not release him and again went into a discussion  and referred to a few other cases from the past in which the court had been holding that individuals while released on bond are not entitled to come including in that situation where a defendant was released on bond and home confinement and so the fact that a person is released on bond with bond conditions one of which might be a return to jail condition does not mean that they were in custody for purposes of the state statute again the other case that is somewhat related is people herself voted as a fourth district two thousand case against factually it might be the most similar to this case in that case the defendant was charged with escape for failure to return from work release while they were out on the the state charged him with a class t version of the state statute which was the actual physical escape from an institution and on appeal this the state asked that the both portions of the state's statute be read together so that a person i hadn't release custody after conviction or a person released before conviction can be punishable under these gates under either cloths and  no the class two version only applies to those people whether they're charged or convicted who physically remove themselves from a penal institution that's a class two or the second oz is the class three version which only applies to people who have been convicted and sentenced and who fail to abide by the terms of their sentence and that's why the constructive  failing to return to jail could be found guilty of skate i don't know of any cases that finds that a defendant has been released on bond on her to not be a threat and the corporal leaved that she would return she had been released once before for m p h in treatment which completed sex at six only then came back then was released again and she failed to return to feel pending re sentencing and so the estate i mean even even in common law these state law was to was was targeting a person who was evading punishment who was  e regardless of the limitations placed on her by her bail conditions it was they were not tied to a sentence and that's why these schemes statute doesn't apply  three version right because all of the conditions provided by the legislature are related to a type of sentence whether it be a reporting or work release or said to ins during which a defendant well i think first of all i think it's because the legislature has had many opportunities to amend the statute and has chosen not to amend it so badly that it includes situations involving male second  the the the whole the the whole point of the state laws have always been about evasion of punishment and so inherently that was added clauses all doubt with some time or another sentence and think there's really no need and that's it makes it more difficult to apply with it with equality or with any measure of reliability because statute really really shows that the legislature did not intend for this to encompass a situation where its where sentences had not been imposed and where a person who is no longer in custody of the department whether the physical or constructive custody there's no dispute that escape would apply to per cent who's been released forty reporting or for invasion out he said drug treatment be it would be constructive custody of i'm just like work release or periodic imprisonment or home confinement or any of those  this right the second section refers to various types of sentencing options provided by the court and sell we would say that the escape saturday was created for either preventing the physical escape from one penal institution which does not necessitate a sentence could be before sentencing but the second component is the  failure to abide by the conditions of the sentence and so because there was no sentence here she violated her bail conditions she did not violate the offens environment it was it was in patient treatment so she was not aware of the leave then treatment if you didn't leave the treatment they condition that the trailer get released  sore those types of conditions are constructive when they're you know taken to the mall and they're allowed to shop for two hours even though the prison supervisor or the you know employee is not bail bond so we've already built in to the bail component of the criminal code the penalty which relates to a v o p be not escape and it says that any obligated some shall be court had imposed a bail that the defendant couldn't pay so the court never actually released the defendant into on bail instead he went to jail the jail was overcrowded the sheriff released him and then he violated so even though he wasn't in physical custody of the jail he was still under their custody and so the illinois supreme court differentiated a bail situation and point in two cases where defendants yes her conviction still start at that time she just still adjudicated guilty now the definition of conviction is a judgment of conviction or sentence but if you look at the definition of judgement that's an legal judgment had not entered her sentence had been revoked if she had been on her be shent and committed these acts i don't think we'd be sitting here but the fact is that the trial court found her safe enough to the public that she they released on bail and the bell statute allows for a release from custody whether it's pretrial or during sentencing up until the final judgment is rendered cell you know that does the bail while five to her it was imposed upon her and at that point she was released from you know still had her case before her and the judgment wasn't final doesn't it is not the question here it doesn't and i'm not arguing that the court had no jurisdiction over the case or anything like that i'm just stating that the escape statute applies to certain types of conduct and that her conduct did not fall under the statute because she was not serving a sentence when she failed to return to jail she violated a condition of her bail and for those reasons the ask it in terms of broadening the definition of all the law to include various types of sentences alternative forms of tradition well prison term so reasons i don't believe that the court should do that either and if there are no further questions th