People v. Contursi
127 N.E.3d 987
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- Defendant Dale Contursi was convicted after a 2016 bench trial of aggravated battery for violently assaulting Sanjay Jaisingani, who suffered a broken nose, bruised ribs, facial cuts and a lasting scar.
- Defendant testified he acted in self-defense; the trial court found the victim more credible and convicted on counts alleging great bodily harm and permanent disfigurement but acquitted on permanent disability.
- PSI showed defendant, a union carpenter earning $36/hour, living in a condominium but incarcerated at sentencing; he has multiple prior violent convictions including a 2011 aggravated battery conviction.
- At sentencing the court imposed 8 years' imprisonment, a $25,000 felony fine, various fees, and 365 days presentencing custody credit to the prison term (but no monetary credit against the fine was entered).
- On appeal defendant challenged the $25,000 fine as excessive/unsupported by consideration of future ability to pay, sought vacatur of certain fees, and requested presentencing custody credit be applied against any fine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Contursi's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether $25,000 fine was excessive / whether court considered ability to pay | State: fine within statutory maximum and court considered offense seriousness and defendant's employment/residence | Contursi: court failed to adequately consider his future ability to pay after an 8-year imprisonment; fine thus excessive | Vacated fine and remanded for an ability-to-pay hearing addressing future ability to pay before imposing any fine |
| Whether failure to object at sentencing forfeits ability-to-pay claim / plain-error or ineffective-assistance review | State: defendant forfeited by not objecting | Contursi: asks plain-error review and ineffective-assistance review for counsel's failure to challenge fine | Court reviewed merits; determined remedial relief required (vacatur/remand) rather than deny on forfeiture grounds |
| Whether $250 DNA analysis fee is proper | State initially assessed fee | Contursi: already in DNA database from prior conviction; fee improper | Vacated the $250 DNA analysis fee (defendant already had DNA on file) |
| Whether $5 electronic citation fee is proper | State assessed fee | Contursi: electronic citation fee applies only to traffic/misdemeanor/ordinance/conservation cases, not felonies | Vacated the $5 electronic citation fee |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Maldonado, 109 Ill. 2d 319 (court must show it considered defendant's financial resources and future ability to pay)
- People v. Bishop, 354 Ill. App. 3d 549 (finding ability-to-pay consideration may be implicit where record shows employment)
- People v. Williams, 256 Ill. App. 3d 370 (PSI and testimony showing steady income can satisfy consideration of ability to pay)
- People v. Johnston, 160 Ill. App. 3d 536 (vacatur and remand where court made no inquiry into defendant's finances)
- People v. Jones, 223 Ill. 2d 569 (principles on sentencing discretion and review)
Outcome summary: conviction and prison sentence affirmed; $25,000 fine vacated and remanded for an ability-to-pay hearing (with credit of up to $1,825 for 365 days of presentencing custody to apply against any fine); $250 DNA fee and $5 electronic citation fee vacated.