People v. Copeland
2020 IL App (2d) 180423
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background:
- Freddy Copeland pleaded guilty to predatory criminal sexual assault of a child and aggravated criminal sexual abuse and received consecutive prison terms of 6 and 4 years.
- At sentencing the State sought various fines and costs, including $765.90 shown on an invoice from US Prisoner Transport (USPT) for transporting Copeland from Texas; the court ordered $765.90 as "restitution" to USPT.
- Copeland did not object at sentencing or in his motion to reconsider the sentence; he appealed challenging the restitution entry.
- Copeland argued USPT was not a "victim" under the restitution statute and that transportation charges are recoverable instead as prosecution costs under section 124A-5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
- The State conceded the restitution award was unauthorized but argued Illinois Supreme Court Rule 472 required Copeland to have raised the sentencing error in the trial court first; alternatively, the State asked the appellate court to correct the entry without remand.
- The appellate court held Rule 472 did not apply because restitution is not a fine, fee, assessment, or cost, vacated the restitution entry, and in lieu of remanding imposed $765.90 as court costs under section 124A-5, otherwise affirming the judgment.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether USPT qualified as a "victim" permitting restitution | State conceded restitution statute did not authorize payment to USPT | USPT was not a "victim"; transport fee is a prosecution cost under 124A-5 | Restitution to USPT was unauthorized; vacated and replaced by costs under 124A-5 |
| Whether Rule 472 bars appellate review because the error concerns "fines, fees, assessments, or costs" | Rule 472 retained circuit court jurisdiction over such sentencing errors and required raising them below; thus remand required | Restitution is distinct from fines/fees/assessments/costs so Rule 472(a)(1) does not apply | Rule 472 inapplicable: restitution is not a fine/fee/assessment/cost; appellate court had jurisdiction to decide the claim |
| Appropriate remedy | If Rule 472 applied, remand; if not, appellate court may correct without remand | Vacate restitution and remand for proper cost order (or appellate court may impose costs) | Court vacated restitution and, for judicial economy, directly imposed $765.90 in court costs under 124A-5; otherwise affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Wauconda Fire Protection District v. Stonewall Orchards, 214 Ill. 2d 417 (2005) (statutory construction: apply plain language to ascertain intent)
- Longstreet v. Cottrell, Inc., 374 Ill. App. 3d 549 (2007) (same principle applied to rules)
- Wade v. City of North Chicago Police Pension Board, 226 Ill. 2d 485 (2007) (presumption that statutes addressing same subject are harmonious)
- Wolfe v. Illini Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n, 158 Ill. App. 3d 321 (1987) (treating consistency between statutes and supreme court rules)
- People v. Danenberger, 364 Ill. App. 3d 936 (2006) (discussing restitution statute victim requirement)
- People v. Gaytan, 186 Ill. App. 3d 919 (1989) (same)
- People v. Jones, 206 Ill. App. 3d 477 (1990) (plain-error cognizability of certain sentencing errors)