People v. Bowens, 78 N.E.3d 1058

Defendant D’Arious Bowens was charged with attempted first-degree murder, aggravated domestic battery, and two counts of aggravated battery after stabbing his girlfriend multiple times; the jury convicted him and he was sentenced to 24 years’ imprisonment.
During voir dire, a prospective juror (Bauknecht) was identified as the trial judge’s husband; the court denied a motion to excuse him for cause; defense counsel did not use a peremptory strike against him and the juror served.
On direct appeal the court previously found Bowens had affirmatively acquiesced to Bauknecht’s service and rejected a claim that the judge erred in allowing her husband to sit; the decision was not raised as ineffective-assistance on direct appeal.
Bowens filed a postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to peremptorily strike the judge’s husband; the matter proceeded to a third-stage evidentiary hearing where witnesses testified about typical practice and counsel explained a strategic reason for reserving peremptories.
The trial court denied postconviction relief; on appeal here the Fourth District affirmed denial of ineffective-assistance relief but vacated a $50 court-finance assessment imposed by the circuit clerk and remanded to apply 430 days’ presentence credit against a $200 domestic-violence fine.

Issue	People’s Argument	Bowens’ Argument	Held
Whether allowing the trial judge’s husband to serve violated due process	Issue was previously litigated on direct appeal and is law of the case; no new relief	Presence of judge’s spouse is per se reversible error and denied an impartial jury	Claim barred by law-of-the-case and res judicata; not relitigated here
Whether counsel was ineffective for not using a peremptory to strike the judge’s husband	Counsel’s choice was reasonable trial strategy; no prejudice given overwhelming evidence	Failure to strike was deficient and warrants presumed prejudice	No prejudice shown under Strickland due to overwhelming evidence; petition denied
Whether the $50 court-finance assessment imposed by the circuit clerk was valid	Conceded improper imposition by clerk; State sought remand for proper imposition by judge	Assessment void because clerks lack authority to impose fines; vacate without remand	$50 assessment vacated; remand for no reimposition (remand forbidden by Castleberry)
Whether defendant is entitled to per diem credit against $200 domestic-violence fine	State concedes defendant entitled to credit	Bowens sought application of 430 days’ credit under section 110-14	Remanded to apply 430 days’ presentence credit and issue amended fines/costs order

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two-prong ineffective-assistance test)
People v. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916 (prohibiting remand to increase sentence by imposing fines on appeal)
People v. Smith, 2014 IL App (4th) 121118 (holding $50 court-finance assessment is a fine and cannot be imposed by clerk)
People v. Larue, 2014 IL App (4th) 120595 (fees/fines imposed by clerk are void)
People v. Caballero, 228 Ill. 2d 79 (section 110-14 per diem credit may be raised at any time)