People v. Dillard, 14 N.E.3d 1285

Defendant Robert Dillard pleaded guilty after a stipulated bench trial to armed robbery with a firearm and was sentenced to 21 years’ imprisonment pursuant to an agreed sentence.
The written sentencing order awarded credit for time served, required a DNA sample and a $250 DNA testing fee only if not already registered, and stated "a judgment be entered against the defendant for costs."
The circuit clerk later prepared a "CASE PAYMENTS" sheet (dated Jan. 30, 2013) listing multiple fines and fees (many identified only by acronyms) that were not expressly itemized or ordered on the face of the court’s sentencing minutes.
Defendant did not challenge the clerk’s calculations in a posttrial motion (his posttrial motion predated the clerk’s sheet), and raised the issue for the first time on appeal.
The State conceded the DNA fee was assessed in error; defendant also sought reduction/vacatur of other fines (VCV assessment and various state/county funds) that appeared on the clerk’s sheet.
The trial court record did not show specific, contemporaneous court orders imposing the fines the clerk listed; the appellate court therefore reviewed whether the clerk’s entries could stand absent a clear court order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the DNA fee assessed by the clerk was properly imposed	State conceded DNA fee was assessed in error	DNA fee was improperly assessed by clerk without court order	Vacated DNA fee (state concession)
Whether the clerk could impose mandatory fines/assessments without explicit court order	Court/State relied on clerk’s administrative role; some funds are mandatory	Dillard argued many fines were not ordered by the court and thus improperly assessed	Vacated all fines in clerk’s tally that were not clearly ordered by the court; remand for trial-court review
Whether defendant forfeited challenge by not raising it below	State argued forfeiture because no trial-court challenge	Dillard contended he lacked notice of clerk’s sheet before posttrial motion deadline	Court acknowledged forfeiture rule but declined to apply it because clerk’s entries were clerical and potentially void; court corrected financials on appeal/remand
Remedy and procedure for resolving ambiguous clerk-imposed costs	State did not oppose remand to correct errors	Dillard sought vacatur/recalculation and clear written order	Court vacated clerk-imposed amounts, remanded for court to recalculate mandatory fines, apply credits, enter written order, and provide defendant a copy

People v. Evangelista, 393 Ill. App. 3d 395 (App. Ct. 2009) (VCV assessment is a fine that cannot be imposed by clerk absent a court order)
People v. Thompson, 209 Ill. 2d 19 (Ill. 2004) (void sentences may be attacked at any time and corrected on review)
People v. Holley, 377 Ill. App. 3d 809 (App. Ct. 2007) (trial court retains responsibility to oversee clerk’s calculation of costs)
People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176 (Ill. 1988) (forfeiture rule for issues not raised in the trial court)