People v. Blalock
2012 IL App (4th) 110041
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Defendant Blalock pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful use of a weapon by a felon in 2008, with a 4-year cap; later, he was sentenced to 30 months’ probation with some jail time.
- State petitions to revoke probation were granted, leading to a July 8, 2010 resentencing to four years’ imprisonment with credit for time served.
- In August 2010, Blalock pro se and later with counsel filed motions for reduction of sentence; the trial court denied on reconsideration in December 2010.
- Postjudgment, the McLean County clerk imposed a $10 drug-court fee and a $15 children’s-advocacy-center fee; the court did not explicitly order these at the November 2008 sentencing.
- The defendant challenged the clerk-imposed fines as unauthorized and sought vacatur; the court ultimately vacated these two fines and remanded to address proper imposition.
- The court held that the drug-court fine could be reimposed as authorized by county ordinance, but the children’s-advocacy-center fine was void at offense time due to lack of statutory authorization.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of postjudgment motion | Blalock argues timely mailing under Rule 12(b)(3) to file motion to reduce sentence. | State argues untimely due to improper proof of mailing and clerk-file date. | Motion untimely; revestment doctrine applied to retain jurisdiction |
| Revestment doctrine applicability | Revestment should allow jurisdiction after untimely filing due to active participation. | Revestment not available post-604(d) or where untimely. | Revestment doctrine satisfied; trial court revested with jurisdiction |
| Authority and validity of fines imposed by clerk | The clerk improperly imposed fines not ordered by the court. | Fines imposed were proper as mandated by subsequent ordinances and statutory authority. | Vacate clerk-imposed drug-court and children’s-center fines; reimpose drug-court fine only |
| Statutory authorization for children’s-advocacy-center fine | Fine not authorized at offense time; void. | Ordinances later authorized the fine; may be reimposed. | Vacate children’s-advocacy-center fine; do not reimpose |
| Credit for time served against fines | Time served should credit fines up to $915. | Credit applies to fines, not fees; should be awarded. | Credit for time served to fines up to $915; remand for amended judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Smith, 2011 IL App (4th) 100430 (Ill. App. 4th Dist. 2011) ( Rule 12(b)(3) affidavit requirement for mailing proof)
- Tlatenchi v. People, 391 Ill. App. 3d 705 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 2009) (notarization required for proof of mailing; timing impact)
- People v. Haldorson, 395 Ill. App. 3d 980 (Ill. App. 4th Dist. 2009) (revestment limits under Rule 604(d) considerations)
- People v. Flowers, 208 Ill. 2d 291 (Ill. 2004) (35-day or 30-day Rule 604(d) revestment considerations)
- People v. Maxwell, 2011 IL App 4th 100434 (Ill. App. 4th Dist. 2011) (post-offense statutory timing and fines under 5-1101)
- People v. Isaacson, 409 Ill. App. 3d 1079 (Ill. App. 4th Dist. 2011) (fines treated as penalties; authority questions)
- People v. Lindmark, 381 Ill. App. 3d 638 (Ill. App. 4th Dist. 2008) (revestment doctrine factors)