People v. Aguirre-Alarcon
59 N.E.3d 229
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- Defendant Cleofas Aguirre-Alarcon was convicted after a bench trial of aggravated domestic battery, domestic battery, and interfering with reporting domestic violence; acquitted of unlawful restraint.
- At sentencing the parties submitted a joint recommendation of 24 months' probation and 180 days' imprisonment; the joint recommendation mentioned mandatory domestic fines but not a public-defender-reimbursement fee.
- The trial court pronounced the joint sentence in open court but did not announce any public-defender-reimbursement fee orally.
- A signed supplemental sentencing order, entered at sentencing, nonetheless assessed a $200 public-defender-reimbursement fee.
- The record contains no notice to defendant or a statutorily required hearing on his ability to pay under 725 ILCS 5/113-3.1(a); the State conceded error on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly imposed a public-defender-reimbursement fee without notice or a hearing | State concedes the procedural requirement was not followed but urges remand for a hearing because the supplemental order shows the court intended to impose the fee | Fee must be vacated outright because no hearing or notice occurred as required by statute | The fee was improperly imposed and must be vacated outright; no remand for a hearing was ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Somers, 984 N.E.2d 471 (Ill. 2013) (a limited inquiry may constitute “some sort of a hearing” within the 90-day window)
- People v. Love, 687 N.E.2d 32 (Ill. 1997) (trial court must hold a hearing and consider defendant’s ability to pay before ordering reimbursement)
- People v. Roberson, 780 N.E.2d 1144 (Ill. App. Ct.) (defendant must receive notice and opportunity to present evidence regarding ability to pay)
- People v. Moore, 45 N.E.3d 696 (Ill. App. Ct.) (mere mention of fee or public defender involvement without inquiry into ability to pay is not a hearing)
- People v. Castillo, 51 N.E.3d 1043 (Ill. App. Ct.) (adopts rule that “some sort of a hearing” requires at least a minimal inquiry into ability to pay)