People v. Clark
129 N.E.3d 1124
Ill.2019Background
- Dennis Clark was convicted by a jury of delivery of a controlled substance (cocaine) and sentenced to 15 years; he spent 482 days in presentence custody.
- The trial court imposed assorted monetary assessments totaling $1,549, including: $2 Public Defender Records Automation Fund; $2 State’s Attorney Records Automation Fund; $15 court automation charge; $15 Court Document Storage Fund charge; $190 felony complaint (clerk) charge; and a $25 court services (sheriff) charge (Clark later withdrew challenge to the $25 charge).
- Clark appealed, arguing several of those assessments are punitive fines (thus eligible for offset by the $5/day presentence incarceration credit under 725 ILCS 5/110-14(a)), not compensatory fees.
- The appellate court treated the six challenged charges as fees; the State conceded the $2 Public Defender charge on response but the majority here ultimately treated it as a fee.
- The Illinois Supreme Court reviewed whether each challenged statutory assessment is a fee (compensatory, not offsettable) or a fine (punitive, offsettable by presentence credit) and affirmed the appellate court.
Issues
| Issue | Clark's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the $2 Public Defender Records Automation Fund and $2 State’s Attorney Records Automation Fund charges fees or fines? | Mandatory, imposed only on conviction, and often collected even when office not used → punitive fine; eligible for presentence credit. | Labeled a fee by statute and compensates for costs of establishing/maintaining automated records in offices essential to prosecution → compensatory fee, not offsettable. | Held fees: the Court finds them compensatory (overrules contrary appellate precedent to extent inconsistent) and not subject to presentence credit. |
| Is the $190 "Felony Complaint Filed (Clerk)" charge a fee or fine? | Mandatory and used for general court financing; thus punitive. | Statute labels it a fee/cost tied to filing costs; compensatory for clerk’s expenses. | Held fee: statutory language shows it reimburses filing costs; not subject to presentence credit. |
| Is the $15 court automation charge a fee or fine? | Mandatory and collectible on conviction including where automation may not apply → punitive. | Statute expressly ties charge to expense of establishing/maintaining automated clerk record systems → compensatory fee. | Held fee: charged to defray automation costs; not subject to presentence credit. |
| Is the $15 Court Document Storage Fund charge a fee or fine? | Collected generally and mixed with civil funds → punitive. | Statute ties proceeds to document storage system costs; compensatory. | Held fee: compensates for storage system costs; not subject to presentence credit. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Jones, 223 Ill. 2d 569 (explains that statutory label is strong evidence but not dispositive; fee = reimburses prosecution costs)
- People v. Graves, 235 Ill. 2d 244 (distinguishes fines and fees; central test is whether assessment reimburses prosecution costs)
- People v. Tolliver, 363 Ill. App. 3d 94 (appellate precedent on fee/fine distinctions)
- Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (establishes necessity of public defender system relevant to compensatory purpose)