People v. Dalton
406 Ill. App. 3d 158
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2010Background
- Dalton charged April 28, 2008 with predatory criminal sexual assault of a child; bond set at $350,000 with a $75 pretrial bond supervision fee, which he did not post.
- Dalton pleaded guilty and was sentenced to incarceration with a life term of mandatory supervised release; the court did not indicate fines or fees at sentencing.
- Clerk later assessed fines and fees at issue; on remand, a Rule 604(d) compliance issue was addressed but the new hearing regarding fines was denied.
- Public defender fee imposed without a hearing on ability to pay; State concedes error and asks for outright vacatur.
- Pretrial bond supervision fee imposed as a condition of bond even though Dalton never posted bond; fee vacated.
- Assessments under 5-9-1.15: $50 circuit court clerk, $130 State's Attorney, $350 sex offender investigation fund; sex offender fund not authorized for Dalton’s offense and ex post facto concerns arise; clerk and State's Attorney fees analyzed as fees rather than fines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public defender fee without ability-to-pay hearing | Dalton argues due process requires a hearing before reimbursement order | State concedes error and does not request remand | Vacated the public defender fee |
| Pretrial bond supervision fee charged though no bond posted | Dalton challenges fee as unauthorized since no pretrial services used | State agrees the fee should not have been assessed | Vacated the pretrial bond supervision fee |
| Validity of 5-9-1.15 assessments and ex post facto implications | Dalton challenges ex post facto applicability and asserts some assessments unauthorized | State concedes sex offender fund not authorized; clerk and State's Attorney fees are proper fees; ex post facto does not apply to fees but does to fines | Clerk and State's Attorney fees affirmed; sex offender investigation fund fine vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Love, 177 Ill.2d 550 (1997) (requires hearing to determine ability to pay for appointed counsel)
- People v. Spotts, 305 Ill.App.3d 702 (1999) (notice and opportunity to be heard for 113-3.1. hearing necessary)
- People v. Jones, 223 Ill.2d 569 (2006) (fees vs fines; costs of prosecution; statutory construction of costs/fees)
- Prince v. Prince, 371 Ill.App.3d 878 (2007) (ex post facto implications for fines vs fees; ex post facto analysis of penalties)
- People v. Arna, 168 Ill.2d 107 (1995) (unauthorized sentence can be challenged; voidable if improper authority)