2018 IL App (2d) 150769
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- Adame was tried for felony theft of a credenza; jury convicted him of theft but the trial court found insufficient evidence that its value exceeded $500 and entered judgment for the lesser misdemeanor.
- At trial the State’s only valuation evidence was an online listing for a new, different-style credenza priced at $1,099.99; victim testified her actual credenza was about 10 years old and maple.
- At sentencing the court reviewed the PSI (corrected to reflect the $1,100 figure) and, without objection, ordered $1,100 restitution and a $250 public-defender fee; two $12 statutory assessments were also imposed.
- Defendant lacked income (claimed on a certificate of assets) and had counsel appointed; counsel did not object to imposition of the restitution or the fee at sentencing.
- On appeal Adame argued the restitution award was unsupported and contrary to the court’s finding at the posttrial motion; he also challenged the public-defender fee procedure and the amount of two statutory assessments.
- The appellate court vacated the restitution order and the public-defender fee, remanded for a proper restitution determination and a proper fee hearing, and reduced the two $12 assessments to $7 each.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of $1,100 restitution when court found value ≤ $500 at posttrial motion | State relied on victim’s selection of online listing and PSI; restitution is within court’s discretion | Restitution was unsupported by evidence and penalized Adame for felony value he was not convicted of | Vacated restitution as plain error; remanded for new restitution hearing |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to contest restitution | State did not address on merits because court found plain error | Adame alternatively argued counsel ineffective for not challenging restitution | Not reached because restitution vacated on plain-error grounds |
| Imposition of $250 public-defender fee without statutory hearing | State contended the sentencing colloquy and PSI sufficed as a hearing | Adame argued statute requires a hearing to determine ability to pay and consideration of certificate of assets; fee may be duplicative | Vacated fee; remanded for a proper hearing within statutory framework (some proceedings occurred but were insufficient) |
| Amount of court-automation and state police assessments | State imposed $12 each per county practice | Adame argued Lake County set fee at $7; assessments therefore excessive | Reduced both assessments to $7 each per Lake County ordinance |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lewis, 234 Ill. 2d 32 (Ill. 2009) (imposition of fines without evidentiary support can implicate right to a fair sentencing hearing and warrant plain-error review)
- People v. Jones, 206 Ill. App. 3d 477 (Ill. App. 1990) (restitution awards unsupported by the evidence may constitute plain error)
- People v. Love, 177 Ill. 2d 550 (Ill. 1997) (statute requires court hearing into defendant’s financial resources before imposing public-defender reimbursement)
- People v. Bradford, 207 Ill. App. 3d 436 (Ill. App. 1991) (trial court exceeded authority by ordering restitution for crimes not resulting in conviction)
- People v. Somers, 2013 IL 114054 (Ill. 2013) (court must give notice and meaningful opportunity to present evidence on ability to pay public-defender fee)