People v. Carreon
2011 IL App (2d) 100391
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Defendant Daniel Carreon was convicted after a stipulated bench trial of possession of drug paraphernalia and possession of cannabis.
- Trial court imposed supervision, public service, counseling, and various fines/fees including a $250 public-defender fee and a $50 performance-enhancing-substance fee.
- On appeal, Carreon challenged the drug-paraphernalia conviction and several fines/fees as improper or fines improperly imposed.
- The State and court agree a hearing on ability-to-pay was required for the public-defender fee, and the performance-enhancing-substance fee was not valid where the statute was not in effect at the time of offense.
- The offense occurred December 4, 2008; the fee statute for the performance-enhancing-substance fee became effective August 7, 2009.
- The court vacated the drug-paraphernalia conviction, vacated the public-defender fee, vacated the performance-enhancing-substance fee, remanded for a hearing on ability to pay, and awarded a $5 credit against the mental-health-court fee.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a cigar constitutes drug paraphernalia | Carreon contends a cigar is not drug paraphernalia under the Act. | State asserts cigar qualifies as paraphernalia given cannabis within it. | Cigar not drug paraphernalia; conviction reversed. |
| Whether the public-defender fee was properly imposed without a hearing on ability to pay | Love requires a hearing before imposing the fee; remand for such hearing. | Fee should stand; no error in assessment. | Public-defender fee vacated; remand for ability-to-pay hearing. |
| Whether the 50 performance-enhancing-substance fee was properly imposed | Statute not in effect at offense time; fee improperly imposed as a fine. | Fee should be treated as a fee and upheld if valid. | Fee vacated as ex post facto violation; improper imposition. |
| Whether Carreon is entitled to a $5 credit against the mental-health-court fee for presentencing custody | Section 110-14(a) provides a $5 per day credit; request allowed on appeal. | Credit is mandatory; should be granted. | Awarded $5 credit against mental-health-court fee. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Love, 177 Ill. 2d 550 (Ill. 1997) (require hearing before imposing the public-defender fee)
- People v. Dalton, 406 Ill. App. 3d 158 (Ill. App. 2010) (ex post facto concerns with post-offense fines)
- People v. Woodard, 175 Ill. 2d 435 (Ill. 1997) (mandatory per-day presentencing credit for custody)
- People v. Graves, 235 Ill. 2d 244 (Ill. 2009) (characterization of mental-health-court fee as a fine)
- People v. Donoho, 204 Ill. 2d 159 (Ill. 2003) (statutory interpretation of drug paraphernalia exemptions)
- People v. Bostic, 348 Ill. App. 3d 661 (Ill. App. 2004) (statutory factors for exemptions under drug paraphernalia act)