Opinion
NO. 4-15-0157 NO. 4-16-0783 cons.
07-18-2017
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. REUBEN M. JOHNSON, 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. 14CF846
Honorable Thomas J. Difanis, Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE KNECHT delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Appleton and Pope concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶ 1 Held: The $50 court finance fine was vacated and the cause was remanded to award defendant $5-per-day sentence credit against the $10 State Police operations and $30 juvenile expungement fund fines.
¶ 2 In August 2014, defendant, Reuben M. Johnson, entered an open guilty plea to theft with a prior theft conviction. In October 2014, the trial court sentenced defendant to 68 months in the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) and order him to pay various fines. Defendant appeals, requesting this court to (1) vacate the $50 court finance assessment as a fine improperly imposed by the circuit clerk, and (2) remand for the circuit clerk to apply $40 in $5-per-day sentence credit to his $10 State Police Operations and $30 juvenile expungment fund assessments. The State concedes both issues. We vacate the $50 court finance fine and remand
for the circuit clerk to apply $40 in $5-per-day sentence credit to defendant's $10 State Police operations and $30 juvenile expungement fund fines.
¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND
¶ 4 In June 2014, defendant was arrested for the theft of a bicycle worth more than $500 and charged with theft, a Class 3 felony (count I) (720 ILCS 5/16-1(a)(4)(A), (b)(4) (West 2014)), and theft with a prior theft conviction, a Class 4 felony (count II) (720 ILCS 5/16-1(a)(4)(A), (b)(2) (West 2014)). In August 2014, defendant entered an open plea of guilty to count II, and the State dismissed count I. In October 2014, the trial court sentenced defendant to an extended prison term of 68 months in IDOC with 1 year of mandatory supervised release.
¶ 5 The trial court's sentencing order awarded defendant 91 days of sentence credit and imposed the following fines: $10 "Arrestee's Medical Assessment" (730 ILCS 125/17 (West 2014)), $10 "State Police Operations Assessment" (705 ILCS 105/27.3a(1.5) (West 2014)), $10 "Traffic/Criminal Surcharge" (730 ILCS 5/5-9-1(c) (West 2014)), $30 "Juvenile Expungement Fund Assessment" (730 ILCS 5/5-9-1.17 (West 2014)), $5 "Drug Court Assessment" (55 ILCS 5/5-1101(f) (West 2014)), and $100 "Violent Crime Victims Assistance Act Assessment" (725 ILCS 240/10(b)(1) (West 2014)).
¶ 6 The printout from the circuit clerk does not show the $5-per-day sentence credit (725 ILCS 5/110-14 (West 2014)) was applied to defendant's fines and states defendant owes a total of $407. Unlike the other assessments on the printout, no amount of money is listed as owed by defendant for the $5 drug court assessment.
¶ 7 In October 2014, the trial court denied defendant's motion to reconsider his sentence, and in November 2014, defendant filed a notice of appeal, which was docketed as case No. 4-14-0964. In January 2015, the trial court denied a January 2015 postconviction petition
filed by defendant, and defendant filed a notice of appeal in March 2015, which was docketed as case No. 4-15-0157.
¶ 8 In case No. 4-14-0964, this court remanded for the filing of a proper certificate pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (eff. Feb. 6, 2013). People v. Johnson, No. 4-14-0964 (Aug. 10, 2016) (agreed order on defendant's motion for summary remand). On remand, defendant filed an amended motion to reconsider his sentence, which the trial court denied in October 2016. In October 2016, defendant filed a notice of appeal from the trial court's denial of his amended motion to reconsider his sentence, which was docketed as case No. 4-16-0783 and consolidated with case No. 4-15-0157.
¶ 9 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 10 In case No. 4-15-0157, defendant appealed the summary dismissal of his January 2015 postconviction petition. As no issues are raised pertaining to this judgment, we dismiss that appeal. In case No. 4-16-0783, defendant requests vacatur of the clerk finance fine and full financial credit against several fines, which arguments we consider in turn.
¶ 11 A. The $50 "Court Finance" Fine
¶ 12 Defendant argues, and the State concedes, the circuit clerk lacked the authority to impose the $50 "Court Finance" assessment (55 ILCS 5/5-1101 (West 2014)). Circuit clerks may impose statutorily authorized fees and collect on specific fines imposed by court order. People v. Smith, 2014 IL App (4th) 121118, ¶¶ 18, 63, 18 N.E.3d 912. The imposition of fines is an exclusively judicial act and outside the authority of circuit clerks. Id. ¶ 18 (citing People v. Larue, 2014 IL App (4th) 120595, ¶ 56, 10 N.E.3d 959). Fines imposed by circuit clerks are void and within the jurisdiction of the appellate court to review. People v. Gutierrez, 2012 IL 111590,
¶ 14, 962 N.E.2d 437. The abolition of the "void sentence rule" does not preclude appellate jurisdiction over fines imposed by circuit clerks. People v. Daily, 2016 IL App (4th) 150588, ¶ 29, 74 N.E.3d 15. The alleged imposition of improper fines or fees presents a question of law, which we review de novo. Id. ¶ 27.
¶ 13 The $50 court finance assessment is a fine, which the circuit clerk lacks the authority to impose. Id. ¶ 30 (citing Smith, 2014 IL App (4th) 121118, ¶ 54, 18 N.E.3d 912). The trial court's sentencing order did not impose a $50 court finance assessment. We vacate this fine.
¶ 14 B. Sentence Credit
¶ 15 Defendant argues, and the State concedes, he is entitled to a $5-per-day sentence credit (725 ILCS 5/110-14 (West 2014)) applied to his $30 juvenile expungement fund assessment (730 ILCS 5/5-9-1.17 (West 2014)) and his State Police operations assessment (705 ILCS 105/27.3a(1.5) (West 2014)). Defendant claims the circuit clerk failed to apply the 91 days of sentence credit awarded by the trial court to his creditable fines. Whether a defendant is entitled to receive sentence credit presents a question of law, which we review de novo. People v. Clark, 2014 IL App (4th) 130331, ¶ 15, 15 N.E.3d 539.
¶ 16 Defendant is entitled by statute to a $5-per-day sentence credit against creditable fines, including the juvenile expungment fund and State Police operations assessments. "Our primary objective when construing a statute is to ascertain and effectuate the legislature's intent." People v. Warren, 2016 IL App (4th) 120721-B, ¶ 99, 55 N.E.3d 117 (citing People v. Gutman, 2011 IL 110338, ¶ 12, 959 N.E.2d 621). "The best indication of the legislature's intent is the language of the statute, which should be given its plain and ordinary meaning." Id. (citing People v. Giraud, 2012 IL 113116, ¶ 6, 980 N.E.2d 1107. Section 110-14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 unequivocally states, "Any person incarcerated on a bailable offense who
does not supply bail and against whom a fine is levied on conviction of such offense shall be allowed a credit of $5 for each day so incarcerated upon application of the defendant." 725 ILCS 5/110-14 (West 2014). The application of the $5-per-day sentence credit is not precluded under the statutes providing for the juvenile expungement fund or the State Police operations assessments. 730 ILCS 5/5-9-1.17 (West 2014); 705 ILCS 105/27.3a(1.5) (West 2014).
¶ 17 We find the circuit clerk failed to apply sentence credit ordered by the trial court to defendant's fines. The $30 juvenile expungement fund is divided equally and is often listed in the circuit clerk printout according to $10 assessments between the State Police Services Fund, State's Attorney's office, and Circuit Court Clerk Operation and Administrative Fund. 730 ILCS 5/5-9-1.17(b) (West 2014). The printout from the circuit clerk does not provide the $5-per-day sentence credit to the aforementioned assessments under the juvenile expungement fund or to the State Police operations assessments. We remand for the trial court to award the $5-per-day sentence credit against the $10 State Police operations and $30 juvenile expungement fund fines.
¶ 18 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 19 In case No. 4-15-0157, we dismiss the appeal. In case No. 4-16-0783, we vacate the $50 court finance assessment and remand with directions to show the $10 State Police operations and $30 juvenile expungment fund fines credited in full; we otherwise affirm.
¶ 20 No. 4-16-0157, Dismissed.
¶ 21 No. 4-16-0783, Affirmed in part as modified and vacated in part; cause remanded with directions.