People v. Chester
2014 IL App (4th) 120564
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2014Background
- Gregory J. Chester was convicted in 2008 of aggravated battery (against a uniformed police officer) and related offenses and received consecutive prison terms. His direct appeal was affirmed.
- On March 22, 2012, Chester filed a pro se postconviction petition raising several constitutional claims, some of which had been raised or were available on direct appeal.
- Four days later Chester filed a "Motion to Stay Post-Conviction," asking for 30–45 days to add newly discovered constitutional arguments and referencing the court's authority to permit withdrawal of a petition.
- The trial court dismissed the petition in June 2012 as frivolous and patently without merit and did not explicitly rule on the motion to stay/withdraw.
- Chester appealed, arguing (1) he had an absolute right to withdraw the petition under the civil voluntary dismissal statute, (2) the trial court abused its discretion by failing to rule on his motion before dismissal, and (3) he was entitled to presentence credit against certain fees/fines assessed by the circuit clerk.
- The appellate court affirmed dismissal, held Chester had no unilateral right to withdraw (Postconviction Act governs), found no abuse of discretion in implicitly denying the motion, vacated the circuit clerk’s fine assessments, and remanded for the trial court to impose mandatory fines and apply any creditable presentence custody credit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant had an absolute right to withdraw his postconviction petition under the civil voluntary dismissal statute | State: Postconviction Act controls withdrawals; court discretion required | Chester: Section 2-1009(a) (civil) allowed voluntary withdrawal before ruling | Held: No absolute right; section 122-5 of the Postconviction Act applies and withdrawal requires court approval |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by not ruling on Chester’s motion to stay/withdraw before dismissing petition | State: Dismissal implicitly ruled on requests; no abuse | Chester: Failure to rule prevented him from amending/adding claims | Held: No abuse of discretion; summary dismissal implicitly denied the request and trial court reasonably declined further delay |
| Whether defendant was entitled to presentence custody credit against CAC and drug-court assessments | State: concession that credit applies to fines; argued some amounts cover bond costs | Chester: Sought $25 credit allocation to offset clerk-imposed fees | Held: Clerk had no authority to impose those fines; clerk’s assessments vacated; remanded for trial court to impose mandatory fines and apply any creditable amounts |
| Whether circuit clerk may impose fines/fees without judge’s sentencing order | State: (implicitly) clerk assessed fees; contended some clerk assessments matched statutory bond costs | Chester: challenged clerk assessments and sought credit | Held: Circuit clerk lacked authority to impose fines; clerk’s assessments void; trial court must impose fines as part of sentence on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Harris, 224 Ill. 2d 115 (supreme court) (section 122-5 applies at first stage and trial court has discretion to allow withdrawal or amendment)
- People v. Watson, 187 Ill. 2d 448 (supreme court) (discussed interplay of amendments and initial-stage postconviction timing)
- People v. English, 2013 IL 112890 (supreme court) (postconviction proceedings are civil in nature but sui generis)
- People v. Gutierrez, 2012 IL 111590 (supreme court) (circuit clerk lacked authority to impose public defender fee; appellate court may correct void clerk orders)
- People v. Swank, 344 Ill. App. 3d 738 (app. ct.) (circuit clerk cannot impose fines; fines must be imposed by judge)
- People v. Isaacson, 409 Ill. App. 3d 1079 (app. ct.) (trial court cannot abdicate imposition of mandatory fines to clerk)