People v. Ruff

18 Citing cases

  1. People v. Moffitt

    138 Ill. App. 3d 106 (Ill. App. Ct. 1985)   Cited 35 times
    In Moffitt, we noted that the discretionary fine provision was enacted in the same Public Act (Pub. Act 83-778) which adopted section 5-9-1.2 of the Unified Code of Corrections (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 1005-9-1.2).

    Several opinions have remarked upon the mandatory nature of this statute. See Peoplev. Harmison (1985), 108 Ill.2d 197; People v. Bergman (1984), 121 Ill. App.3d 100, 458 N.E.2d 1370; People v. Ruff (1983), 115 Ill. App.3d 691, 450 N.E.2d 1369. In defendant's view, this mandatory fine provision was impliedly repealed by subsequent legislative action.

  2. People v. Lampkins

    2015 Ill. App. 3d 141013 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015)

    1(a) (West 2012). Thus, defendants are not legally eligible to have the street value fine apportioned jointly among the two of them. ¶ 20 We reject defendants' reliance on People v. Ruff, 115 Ill. App. 3d 691 (1983), in support of their argument that Bertrand should have sought to apportion the street value fine between them because "[t]he same factors that the Judge utilized in Ruff to apportion the fine are the same factors that can be utilized here to apportion the street value fine." The Ruff court held that section 5-9-1.1 of the Code did not authorize apportionment of the street value fine and, consequently, the street value fine imposed on the defendant was less than that required by statute.

  3. People v. Rader

    538 N.E.2d 1197 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989)   Cited 1 times

    Subsection (c) of section 5-9-1 imposes an additional penalty of 10%. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 1005-9-1. Rader relies on People v. Ruff (1983), 115 Ill. App.3d 691, 450 N.E.2d 1369, for the proposition that section 5-9-1(c) is inapplicable to fines levied under section 5-9-1.1. In Ruff, the defendant argued that in levying an automatic fine under section 5-9-1.1, the trial court erred because it failed to consider her financial resources and future ability to pay, as mandated by section 5-9-1(d).

  4. People v. Carrasquilla

    522 N.E.2d 139 (Ill. App. Ct. 1988)   Cited 11 times
    In Carrasquilla, a police officer testified that the usual and customary cost for the purchase of a gram of cocaine was $100.

    Even if the fine was imposed under section 5-9-1, however, the mandatory street value fine under section 5-9-1.1 must still be imposed. Because of the purposes for which section 5-9-1.1 was enacted, defendant's ability to pay any street value fine imposed under that section is irrelevant. See People v. Ruff (1983), 115 Ill. App.3d 691, 695, 450 N.E.2d 1369. We are not persuaded by the State's argument that pursuant to People v. Ruff (1983), 115 Ill. App.3d 691, 450 N.E.2d 1369, this court should correct the trial court's omission and impose a fine of $400,000.

  5. People v. Maldonado

    109 Ill. 2d 319 (Ill. 1985)   Cited 11 times

    This court has not previously considered the precise issue presented, and the decisions of the appellate court are not in agreement. See People v. Eades (1984), 123 Ill. App.3d 113; People v. Miller (1983), 120 Ill. App.3d 495; People v. Ruff (1983), 115 Ill. App.3d 691; People v. Jumper (1983), 113 Ill. App.3d 346; People v. Morrison (1983), 111 Ill. App.3d 997; People v. Taylor (1980), 84 Ill. App.3d 467; People v. Bishop (1980), 81 Ill. App.3d 521. In People v. Youngbey (1980), 82 Ill.2d 556, we considered whether section 5-3-1 of the Unified Code of Corrections (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 38, par. 1005-3-1), which required a presentence investigation and report, was mandatory and whether it could be waived absent an agreement between the parties as to the sentence to be imposed.

  6. People v. Logan

    2020 Ill. App. 5th 180243 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020)

    However, defendant's assertion that he will be unable to pay his fines after his release amounts to nothing more than mere speculation and falls short of demonstrating, in good faith, his inability to pay the fines. See People v. Ruff, 115 Ill. App. 3d 691, 695 (1983) (finding that provisions of section 5-9-2 provide a safeguard "for those who in good faith are unable to pay a fine"). ¶ 16 Defendant also argues that the circuit court gave no consideration as to whether there existed good cause to revoke the fines, as the court's order contains no reference to good cause.

  7. People v. Williams-Smith

    2020 IL App (4th) 180500 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020)

    Rather, the majority of the cases defendant cites pertain to the imposition of fines or costs. See People v. Ruff, 115 Ill. App. 3d 691, 694, 450 N.E.2d 1369, 1372 (1983) (challenging the imposition of a fine); People v. Contursi, 2019 IL App (1st) 162894, ¶ 19, 127 N.E.3d 987 (same); People v. Love, 177 Ill. 2d 550, 554-55, 687 N.E.2d 32, 34 (1997) (challenging an order to pay reimbursement for appointed counsel); People v. Cook, 81 Ill. 2d 176, 181, 407 N.E.2d 56, 58 (1980) (same); People v. MacTaggart, 2019 IL App (3d) 160583, ¶ 10 (challenging a finding that the defendant could afford private counsel); In re Marriage of Breitenfeldt, 362 Ill. App. 3d 668, 674, 840 N.E.2d 694, 699 (2005) (challenging whether there was a substantial change in circumstances to support the modification of a child support order). In this case, the trial court did not require as a part of defendant's resentencing that defendant pay the fee for a domestic violence evaluation or determine if defendant should be required to pay such a fee.

  8. People v. O'Bryant

    2020 IL App (4th) 170892 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020)

    As this court has noted, section 5-9-2 is a safeguard "for those who in good faith are unable to pay a fine." People v. Ruff, 115 Ill. App. 3d 691, 695, 450 N.E.2d 1369, 1373 (1983). And "there is no limit on the filing of successive section 5-9-2 petitions in the trial court."

  9. People v. Barajas

    2018 Ill. App. 3d 160433 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)   Cited 3 times

    Consistent with the council commentary, the Fourth District has observed that a court need not consider a defendant's ability to pay at the time it imposes fines because "safeguards exist for those who in good faith are unable to pay a fine." People v. Ruff , 115 Ill. App. 3d 691, 695, 71 Ill.Dec. 490, 450 N.E.2d 1369 (1983). Those safeguards include the fine revocation provisions of section 5-92.

  10. People v. Peyton

    2016 Ill. App. 2d 140564 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016)

    section 5-9-2 indicates that the legislature intended to provide a defendant relief from fines when factors, external to the original proceeding, warrant the revocation or modification of the fines to ease a defendant's financial burden. Mingo, 403 Ill. App. 3d at 972; see also People v. Ruff, 115 Ill. App. 3d 691, 695 (1983) (statutory safeguards, such as section 5-9-2, exist for those who, in good faith, are unable to pay a fine).¶ 18 We begin by emphasizing that a trial court is presumed to know and follow the law, unless the record affirmatively indicates otherwise.