2019 IL App (1st) 153155
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- Defendant Jodie Christian (age 38) was convicted after a bench trial of two counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse of a 14‑year‑old (January 2014) and sentenced to concurrent 4½‑year prison terms.
- The trial court awarded 102 days of presentence custody credit (clerk order later corrected to 109 days) and imposed $409 in fines/fees with an $80 monetary credit, for $329 owed.
- Christian raised as‑applied constitutional challenges to the Sex Offender Registration Act (due process and disproportionate penalty claims) and sought adjustments to fines/fees and sentencing credit.
- The State cited People v. Bingham; the court held that as‑applied challenges to collateral consequences (like sex‑offender registration) may not be litigated for the first time on direct criminal appeal.
- The court corrected the mittimus to reflect 109 days, vacated an improperly imposed $5 electronic citation fee, credited the $15 state police operations assessment against presentence custody credit, and held all remaining challenged assessments are fees (not fines) and not subject to presentence custody offset.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of Sex Offender Registration Act (as‑applied) | State: appeal cannot relieve defendant of collateral regulatory obligations on direct appeal | Christian: registration violates substantive/procedural due process and is punitive/disproportionate | Dismissed as beyond scope of direct criminal appeal under Ill. S. Ct. R. 615(b); challenges must be litigated in proper proceedings (e.g., civil suit or appeal from a registration order) |
| Presentence custody days on mittimus | State: mittimus should match record | Christian: clerical error—he spent 109 days, not 102 | Mittimus corrected to 109 days under Rule 615(b)(1) |
| $5 electronic citation fee | State: fee properly imposed | Christian: fee inapplicable to felony convictions | $5 fee vacated (statute applies only to traffic/misdemeanors/municipal/conservation violations) |
| Application of presentence custody credit to assessments | State: many assessments are compensatory fees not subject to credit | Christian: several assessments (state police fee, filing fee, clerk automation/storage, court service fee, $2 automation fees) are fines and thus offsettable | $15 state police operations charge treated as a fine and credited; all other listed assessments held to be fees (not fines) and not subject to presentence custody credit per People v. Clark and precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Bingham, 2018 IL 122008 (holding an as‑applied challenge to sex‑offender registration cannot be raised for the first time on direct appeal)
- People v. Clark, 2018 IL 122495 (holding certain court‑related assessments are compensatory fees, not fines, and not subject to presentence custody credit)
- People v. Jones, 223 Ill. 2d 569 (defining distinction between punitive fines and compensatory fees)
- People v. Graves, 235 Ill. 2d 244 (same; examine nature over label to classify fee vs fine)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (discussing collateral consequences of conviction)
- Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (noting indigent defense is integral to criminal prosecutions)