People v. Breeden
2014 IL App (4th) 121049
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Thomas Breeden pleaded guilty (April 27, 2010) to failing to register as a sex offender (Class 3 felony) and was sentenced to 24 months probation (time-served component) with monetary obligations reflected in a docket entry.
- Breeden later admitted violating probation (April 3, 2012) and the court revoked probation and ordered a presentence investigation and sex-offender evaluation.
- At resentencing (Sept. 24, 2012) the trial court imposed 58 months' imprisonment (within the 2–5 year statutory range) and awarded limited credit; the written resentencing order referenced only costs of prosecution and the docket/clerks’ printouts showed numerous assessments.
- The State and Breeden agreed several monetary assessments were void because they were imposed by the circuit clerk (not the judge) or were below statutorily mandated minima (notably a $255 sex-offender registration assessment when statute required $500 minimum).
- The appellate majority affirmed the 58‑month prison sentence (finding no abuse of discretion) but vacated four specific assessments (arrestee medical $10; state police services $10; drug court $5; sex‑offender reg. $255) and remanded for the trial court to calculate and directly impose mandatory fines (including $500 sex‑offender registration fine) applying defendant’s credits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Breeden) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 58‑month sentence was an abuse of discretion | Sentence appropriate given criminal history, probation violation, need for deterrence | Sentence excessive given mostly old/traffic convictions, employment, non‑violent nature of offense | Affirmed — sentencing within statutory range and not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether certain monetary assessments imposed by clerk are void | Clerk-imposed fines are void; trial court must impose mandatory fines directly | Agreed those clerk-imposed assessments were void | Vacated clerk-imposed assessments cited by parties and remanded for judge to impose mandatory fines |
| Whether the $255 sex‑offender registration assessment is valid | $255 below statutory minimum; thus void and must be replaced by $500 statutory fine | Agreed $255 is invalid and $500 statutory fine required | Vacated $255 assessment; remanded to impose $500 registration fine (apply credits) |
| Remedy and scope of remand — whether trial court should recalculate and impose all mandatory fines | Court should vacate void assessments and remand for judge to directly calculate/impose mandatory fines and apply credits | Agreed with remand remedy; potential challenge to plea could follow if additional fines would have changed plea | Remanded with directions to calculate and directly impose mandatory fines (including $500) applying any monetary credit; otherwise affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Perruquet, 68 Ill. 2d 149 (1977) (standard of review for sentencing; only disturb for abuse of discretion)
- People v. Crane, 195 Ill. 2d 42 (2001) (deference to trial court sentencing decisions)
- People v. Jones, 223 Ill. 2d 569 (2006) (distinguishing fines from fees/costs; fee recoups prosecution costs)
- People v. Graves, 235 Ill. 2d 244 (2009) (assessments intended to finance court system are monetary penalties/fines despite statutory labels)
- People v. Nussbaum, 251 Ill. App. 3d 779 (1993) (parties' sentencing recommendations carry whatever weight the trial court gives them and do not control appellate review)