Opinion
NO. 4-15-0443
08-22-2017
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KENDUN PAYNE, Defendant-Appellant.
NOTICE
This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from Circuit Court of Champaign County
No. 13CF412
Honorable Richard P. Klaus, Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the judgment of the court.
Presiding Justice Turner and Justice Holder White concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶ 1 Held: The appellate court vacated fines improperly imposed by the circuit clerk.
¶ 2 In May 2013, defendant, Kendun Payne, pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a controlled substance (720 ILCS 570/402(c) (West 2012)), and the trial court sentenced him to 24 months of probation. In October 2014, the State filed a petition to revoke his probation, which the trial court granted. In February 2015, the court resentenced defendant to 5 1/2 years in prison. Defendant appeals, arguing the circuit clerk improperly imposed various fines that this court should vacate. We agree and vacate the improperly assessed fines.
¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND
¶ 4 In May 2013, defendant pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a controlled substance (id.), and the trial court sentenced him to 24 months of probation. In its written sentencing judgment, the court imposed seven assessments: (1) $10 anti-crime fee; (2) $100
crime laboratory analysis fee; (3) Violent Crime Victims Assistance Act fee; (4) $25-per-month probation services fee; (5) $250 genetic marker grouping analysis fee; (6) $10 street value fine; and (7) $500 "mandatory assessment." The written sentencing judgment also ordered defendant to pay all fines, fees, and costs as authorized by statute.
¶ 5 In October 2014, the State filed a petition to revoke defendant's probation for failing to report to the court services department as directed. In November 2014, defendant admitted the allegations in the State's petition, and the trial court revoked his probation.
¶ 6 In February 2015, the trial court resentenced defendant to 5 1/2 years in prison. In its written sentencing judgment, the court imposed two assessments: a (1) Violent Crime Victims Assistance Act fee and (2) $250 genetic marker grouping analysis fee. The written sentencing judgment also ordered defendant to pay all outstanding financial obligations previously imposed and all other fines, fees, and costs as authorized by statute. Defendant filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea and vacate his sentence. In April 2015, counsel filed an amended motion to reconsider the sentence, which the trial court denied.
¶ 7 This appeal followed.
¶ 8 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 9 On appeal, defendant argues the circuit clerk improperly imposed various fines and requests that we vacate them. Specifically, he argues the following fines were improperly imposed by the circuit clerk: (1) $50 "Court Finance Fee"; (2) $10 "Arrestee's Medical"; (3) $5 "Drug Court Program"; (4) $10 "SP Services"; and (5) $15 "SP Operations." The State argues that the record does not conclusively show the fines defendant challenges were clerk-imposed.
¶ 10 At the outset, we note the assessments defendant challenges are, in fact, fines. See People v. Smith, 2014 IL App (4th) 121118, ¶¶ 46, 54, 57, 18 N.E.3d 912 (the arrestee's medical
fee and court finance fee are fines, and the drug court program assessment is a fine because defendant did not participate in drug court); People v. Warren, 2016 IL App (4th) 120721-B, ¶¶ 133-134, 147, 55 N.E.3d 117 (the State Police services and operations assessments are fines).
¶ 11 Next, we must decide whether the circuit clerk imposed these fines, rendering them void. "Although circuit clerks can have statutory authority to impose a fee, they lack authority to impose a fine, because the imposition of a fine is exclusively a judicial act." (Emphases in original.) Smith, 2014 IL App (4th) 121118, ¶ 18, 18 N.E.3d 912. Thus, "any fines imposed by the circuit clerk are void from their inception." People v. Larue, 2014 IL App (4th) 120595, ¶ 56, 10 N.E.3d 959.
¶ 12 The State argues the trial court properly imposed the fines defendant challenges, and therefore, they are not void and subject to vacatur. The State relies on a docket entry from May 2013, which states, "Fine + Cost Fee $1878.00 Signed Judge KLAUS RICHARD P," to support its argument that the fines were judicially imposed. However, the remainder of the record contradicts this argument. The court's May 2013 written sentencing judgment did not authorize fines and costs of $1878, and the fines defendant challenges were not part of the written sentencing judgment. Further, the transcript from defendant's sentencing hearing is devoid of any oral pronouncement of these fines.
¶ 13 Next, the State suggests the fines were judicially imposed because both the May 2013 and February 2015 written sentencing judgments state that defendant shall pay all fines, fees, and costs as authorized by statute. We disagree. This court has previously held, when a trial court "ordered defendant to 'pay all fines, fees, and costs as authorized by statute,' it improperly delegated its power to impose a sentence to the circuit clerk." Warren, 2016 IL App (4th) 120721-B, ¶ 89, 55 N.E.3d 117. The State points out that the court in Warren specifically found
there was "no docket entry, order, or amended sentencing judgment reflecting the imposition" of the assessments by a judge (id. ¶ 88), whereas docket entries exist in this case, dated May 29, 2013, and February 2, 2015, reflecting total assessments of $1878 and $1783, respectively. The State argues these docket entries indicate the court approved the challenged assessments. However, nothing in the docket entries reflects the court ordered the specific fines identified by defendant on appeal. They only set forth a total amount owed. Therefore, we cannot conclude the court approved these assessments. Id.; see also Smith, 2014 IL App (4th) 121118, ¶ 63, 18 N.E.3d 912 ("Absent a court order imposing a specific fine, it is well established the clerk of a court, as a nonjudicial member of the court, has no power to levy fines.").
¶ 14 In conclusion, the trial court's May 2013 and February 2015 written sentencing judgments and the trial court's comments from defendant's sentencing hearings do not reflect the imposition of the enumerated fines by a judge. As such, these fines were clerk-imposed, and we vacate them. See People v. Daily, 2016 IL App (4th) 150588, ¶ 30, 74 N.E.3d 15.
¶ 15 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 16 For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the following assessments: (1) $50 "Court Finance Fee"; (2) $10 "Arrestee's Medical"; (3) $5 "Drug Court Program"; (4) $10 "SP Services"; and (5) $15 "SP Operations." We otherwise affirm the trial court's judgment.
¶ 17 Affirmed in part and vacated in part.