" People v. Shinaul, 2017 IL 120162, ¶ 10. ¶ 12 The State relies, in part, on the First District's decision in People v. Griffin, 2017 IL App (1st) 143800, 82 N.E.3d 186. In that case, the defendant pleaded guilty in two cases in April 2014 but did not file a motion to withdraw his plea or reconsider his sentence or a direct appeal.
But the State claims we cannot consider this issue because we are without subject matter jurisdiction.¶ 8 The First District recently issued an opinion addressing the issue presented here. See People v. Griffin , 2017 IL App (1st) 143800, 415 Ill.Dec. 241, 82 N.E.3d 186. We find the court's opinion in Griffin persuasive, and we adopt its reasoning.
But, Brown cannot resurrect in this appeal issues on the merits of assessments (which would have been properly raised, if preserved, in his direct appeal) as if he were applying the ministerial correction of a mathematical calculation called for under section 110-14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 ( 725 ILCS 5/110-14 (West 2010) ). Brown has not persuaded us to ignore the lack of appellate jurisdiction. See People v. Griffin , 2017 IL App (1st) 143800, ¶ 21, 415 Ill.Dec. 241, 82 N.E.3d 186 (rejecting effort to "revest" appellate court with jurisdiction when jurisdiction never revested in trial court).¶ 3 Background
On the Court's own motion, the appeal is dismissed. In the exercise of this Court's supervisory authority, the Appellate Court, First District, is directed to vacate its judgment in People v. Griffin, 415 Ill.Dec. 241, 82 N.E.3d 186 (2017). The appellate court is directed to remand the case to the circuit court where the defendant may raise his contentions of errors in sentencing as set forth in Supreme Court Rule 472.
The procedural history of Blancas's case raises an additional question about our jurisdiction that had been resolved in this district but was recently reopened by our supreme court. See People v. Griffin , 2017 IL App (1st) 143800, ¶ 26, 415 Ill.Dec. 241, 82 N.E.3d 186, leave to appeal allowed , No. 122549, 419 Ill.Dec. 670, 93 N.E.3d 1087 (Ill. Nov. 22, 2017), appeal dismissed and judgment vacated in light of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 472, No. 122549, 2019 WL 2150362 (Ill. Apr. 18, 2019) (supervisory order), http://illinoiscourts.gov/SupremeCourt/Announce/2019/122549.pdf [https://perma.cc/9D42-L8BL].
People v. Smith, 228 Ill. 2d 95, 104 (2008). ¶ 10 In People v. Griffin, 2017 IL App (1st) 143800, this district considered whether appellate jurisdiction existed where the defendant instituted an appeal from the denial of a motion to correct the mittimus. There, the defendant filed a pro se motion to correct the mittimus to correct his custody date for purposes of calculating his presentence detention credit.
Rule 615(b) likewise provides no stand-alone basis for modification of the fines and fees order, as it must be read in conjunction with subsection (a)'s mandate that errors not affecting substantial rights "shall be disregarded." Ill. S.Ct. R. 615(a) ; Grigorov , 2017 IL App (1st) 143274, ¶¶ 13–15, 418 Ill.Dec. 689, 91 N.E.3d 390; People v. Griffin , 2017 IL App (1st) 143800, ¶ 9, 415 Ill.Dec. 241, 82 N.E.3d 186. ¶ 6 We also consider whether we may review Smith's challenges in the context of his request for presentence credit and conclude we cannot.
Prior to the Smith decision, Justice Mason noted in People v. Grigorov , 2017 IL App (1st) 143274, ¶ 16, 418 Ill.Dec. 689, 91 N.E.3d 390, "we find that in the long run, judicial economy would be best served if fines-and-fees issues were resolved expeditiously at the trial court level, rather than requiring the time and expense of an appeal in the first place." And in People v. Griffin , 2017 IL App (1st) 143800, 415 Ill.Dec. 241, 82 N.E.3d 186, although this court refused to allow the defendant to bring a free-floating attack in the appellate court on the order assessing fines and fees because we found that there was no final order being appealed and thus no appellate jurisdiction ( id. ¶ 25 ), we also noted that "[c]opious amounts of time, effort, and ink are spent resolving these issues at the appellate level" when they could be better resolved at the trial level and through agreed orders ( id. ¶ 6 ). It is particularly troubling to see these issues repeatedly arise on appeal in cases where both sides agree that the assessments were erroneously imposed.
A simple search reveals that there were well over a hundred cases, in 2016 alone, in which a defendant challenged the imposition of fines and/or fees on appeal. See People v. Griffin , 2017 IL App (1st) 143800, ¶ 5, 415 Ill.Dec. 241, 82 N.E.3d 186. Clearly, defendant's case is not unique, and this problem continues to persist. ¶ 42 While many of these errors should be discovered and resolved at the trial court level, it has been our position and custom, as Justice Thomas aptly indicates, to allow the appellate court the opportunity to correct erroneous fines and fees on appeal, as long as the appeal is properly before the appellate court.
People v. Reed , 2016 IL App (1st) 140498, ¶ 13, 400 Ill.Dec. 341, 48 N.E.3d 290 ("the rules of waiver and forfeiture are also applicable to the State"). While we disagree that plain error or Rule 615(b) provide avenues for review of these forfeited issues ( People v. Grigorov , 2017 IL App (1st) 143274, ¶ 14, 418 Ill.Dec. 689, 91 N.E.3d 390 ; People v. Griffin , 2017 IL App (1st) 143800, ¶ 9, 415 Ill.Dec. 241, 82 N.E.3d 186, appeal allowed , No. 122549, 419 Ill.Dec. 670, 93 N.E.3d 1087 (Ill. Nov. 22, 2017) ), we will review Christian's claims. We review the propriety of a trial court's imposition of fines and fees de novo . People v. Bryant , 2016 IL App (1st) 140421, ¶ 22, 404 Ill.Dec. 1, 55 N.E.3d 97.