Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

People v. Williams

1 N.E.3d 1270 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
People v. Williams

35 Citing cases

  1. People v. Adams

    2016 Ill. App. 141135 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016)   Cited 24 times
    Following Williams

    The Daniels court reasoned there was “simply no evidence that there was a hearing ‘held to resolve defendant's representation by the public defender.’ ” Id. (quoting People v. Williams, 2013 IL App (2d) 120094, ¶ 20, 377 Ill.Dec. 383, 1 N.E.3d 1270 ). ¶ 23 In contrast to Gutierrez and Daniels, our supreme court remanded for a new hearing on the fee in Somers where the trial court “did have some sort of a hearing within the statutory time period.”

  2. People v. Hardman

    2017 IL 121453 (Ill. 2017)   Cited 159 times
    In Hardman, however, we were not specifically called upon to construe the language of section 407(b)(2) pertaining to churches.

    Other panels have focused more generally upon the State's motion to impose a fee and the ordinary definition of a "hearing." See Glass , 2017 IL App (1st) 143551, ¶¶ 13, 15, 411 Ill.Dec. 136, 72 N.E.3d 824 ; People v. Williams , 2013 IL App (2d) 120094, ¶ 20, 377 Ill.Dec. 383, 1 N.E.3d 1270 ; People v. Rankin , 2015 IL App (1st) 133409, ¶ 21, 394 Ill.Dec. 853, 37 N.E.3d 332 ; People v. Adams , 2016 IL App (1st) 141135, ¶ 26, 401 Ill.Dec. 596, 50 N.E.3d 738 ; People v. Alejo , 2015 IL App (1st) 133508-U, ¶ 29, 2015 WL 4730387 ; People v. Garcia , 2015 IL App (1st) 133502-U, ¶ 10, 2015 WL 4730379 ; People v. Turner , 2015 IL App (1st) 140028-U, ¶ 18, 2015 WL 9315720. ¶ 63 Those panels concluding that "some sort of a hearing" requires some inquiry into the defendant's financial circumstances attribute much weight to the fact that, in Somers , this court observed that the trial court had asked the defendant three questions about his financial circumstances.

  3. People v. Glass

    2017 Ill. App. 143551 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)   Cited 18 times

    ¶ 15 Panels in both this district and the Second District have read Somers more broadly, concluding instead that remand is proper so long as the defendant had some opportunity to be heard regarding the State's motion. See People v. Williams , 2013 IL App (2d) 120094, ¶ 20, 377 Ill.Dec. 383, 1 N.E.3d 1270 ; People v. Rankin , 2015 IL App (1st) 133409, ¶ 21, 394 Ill.Dec. 853, 37 N.E.3d 332 ; People v. Adams , 2016 Il App (1st) 141135, ¶ 26, 401 Ill.Dec. 596, 50 N.E.3d 738. The definition of a "hearing" applied in these cases is one used in another context by our supreme court.

  4. People v. Price

    2015 Ill. App. 133308 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015)

    We disagree. See People v. Carreon, 2011 IL App (2d) 100391, ¶ 11 ("Although defendant did not raise this issue in the trial court, where a trial court imposes [the public defender fee] without following the appropriate procedural requirements, application of the forfeiture rule is inappropriate."); see also People v. Williams, 2013 IL App (2d) 120094, ¶ 13. Therefore, because defendant alleges noncompliance with the procedural requirements for imposing the fee, defendant has not forfeited review of this contention, and we will address the merits.

  5. People v. Villegas

    2017 Ill. App. 143140 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)

    People v. Johnson, 297 Ill. App. 3d 163, 165 (1998). The hearing is mandatory (People v. Williams, 2013 IL App (2d) 120094, ¶ 13), and "must focus on the costs of representation, the defendant's financial circumstances, and the foreseeable ability of the defendant to pay." Somers, 2013 IL 114054, ¶ 14.

  6. People v. Castillo

    2016 Ill. App. 2d 140529 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016)   Cited 8 times

    Id. ¶ 11 In People v. Williams, 2013 IL App (2d) 120094, ¶ 20, 377 Ill.Dec. 383, 1 N.E.3d 1270, the trial court imposed the fee, in open court and within 90 days. However, at no point did the court ask the defendant any questions about his ability to pay the fee or indicate that it had considered the defendant's certificate of assets.

  7. People v. Holmes

    2017 Ill. App. 151526 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017)

    The State also agrees with defendant that, even though defendant failed to object to the imposition of the public defender fee at his sentencing hearing, this issue is not subject to forfeiture. See People v. Love, 177 Ill. 2d 550, 564 (1997); see also People v. Carreon, 2011 IL App (2d) 100391, ¶ 11 (forfeiture rule inappropriate where trial court imposed public defender reimbursement fee "without following the appropriate procedural requirements"); People v. Williams, 2013 IL App (2d) 120094, ¶ 13. ¶ 7 Section 113-3.1(a) of the Code provides as follows: "Whenever under either Section 113-3 of this Code or Rule 607 of the Illinois Supreme Court the court appoints counsel to represent a defendant, the court may order the defendant to pay to the Clerk of the Circuit Court a reasonable sum to reimburse either the county or the State for such representation.

  8. People v. Silman

    2016 Ill. App. 4th 140466 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016)

    Id. ¶ 41. In so concluding, Moore disagreed with People v. Williams, 2013 IL App (2d) 120094, 1 N.E.3d 1270, in which the Second District held that "the Somers court intended for 'some sort of a hearing' to include a hearing where there was no discussion of the amount of fees to be imposed or defendant's ability to pay them." Moore, 2015 IL App (1st) 141451, ¶ 38, 45 N.E.3d 696; Williams, 2013 IL App (2d) 120094, ¶ 20, 1 N.E.3d 1270.

  9. People v. Daniels

    2015 Ill. App. 2d 130517 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015)   Cited 26 times
    In People v. Daniels, 2015 IL App (2d) 130517, ¶¶ 29-30, this court vacated the fee without remand when the trial court imposed it by written order after defendant was already sentenced and never referenced the fee in open court.

    However, prior to ordering reimbursement, the trial court must conduct a hearing, within 90 days of sentencing, regarding the defendant's financial resources. Id.; People v. Williams, 2013 IL App (2d) 120094, ¶¶ 12-13. The hearing must not be conducted in a perfunctory manner.

  10. People v. Parrish

    2015 Ill. App. 130915 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015)

    Review of the trial court's compliance with section 113-3.1 is de novo. People v. Williams, 2013 IL App (2d) 120094, ¶ 13.¶ 8 Forfeiture is not appropriate where the trial court assesses a public defender fee without following the procedural requirements.