People v. Devine
976 N.E.2d 624
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Defendant was indicted for unlawful possession of a controlled substance (less than 0.1 grams of cocaine residue) based on an incident in April 2009.
- A stipulated bench trial on August 25, 2010 found defendant guilty and the court sentenced him to 54 months in prison with mandatory financial consequences.
- The State stated it was not seeking a street-value fine due to the small amount of cocaine involved, but the court imposed the mandatory financial consequences.
- On appeal, defendant challenged the Trauma Center Fund fine of $100 and a $25 Drug Traffic Prevention Fund assessment, and challenged the circuit clerk’s use of bond funds to satisfy unpaid child support.
- The appellate court remanded in part for imposition of a street-value fine, vacated the $25 assessment, and addressed the bond-claim as to child support.
- The court also awarded the State its $50 appellate costs and issued an amended sentencing judgment consistent with its rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to impose Trauma Center Fund | Devine argues the $100 Trauma Center Fund fine has no statutory basis when no street-value fine was imposed. | Devine asserts lack of statutory authority for the fine in this context. | Vacated/Remanded: no authority for the fine; need not decide further here. |
| Authority to impose Drug Traffic Prevention Fund assessment | State argues the assessment applies; defendant contends ex post facto concerns. | Dalton prohibits post-offense applicability; the assessment should not apply. | Vacated: the $25 assessment was vacated as it becoming effective after the offense. |
| Bond monies used to satisfy child support | State contends bond may be used to satisfy child support under 110-7(f). | Defendant contends bond cannot be used for child support under 110-7, arguing lack of authority. | Remanded with direction: 110-7(f) authorizes use for unpaid child support; bond can be used to satisfy such obligations. |
| Street-value fine requirement under section 5-9-1.1(a) | A street-value fine must be imposed when convicted of possession/delivery of controlled substances. | Argues the trial court failed to impose a street-value fine or misapplied it. | Remanded: impose the statutory street-value fine; vacate the related $25 assessment; affirm otherwise. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Spencer, 347 Ill. App. 3d 483 (2004) (statutory street-value fine requires concrete evidentiary basis)
- People v. Blankenship, 406 Ill. App. 3d 578 (2010) (de minimis street-value fines recognized in limited circumstances)
- People v. Bond, 405 Ill. App. 3d 499 (2010) (examples involving small amounts of cocaine and street value)
- People v. Dalton, 406 Ill. App. 3d 158 (2010) (ex post facto considerations for post-offense fines)
- People v. Sargent, 239 Ill. 2d 166 (2010) (plain-error framework and allocation of burden on defendant)
- People v. Williams, 239 Ill. 2d 503 (2011) (statutory interpretation related to fines and costs)
- People v. Zimmerman, 239 Ill. 2d 491 (2010) (statutory interpretation of bail bond provisions)
- People v. Thompson, 238 Ill. 2d 598 (2010) (procedural prerequisites for plain-error review)