People v. Dunlap, 992 N.E.2d 184

Defendant Richard Dunlap was convicted (June 2011 jury) of aggravated battery to a police officer and five counts of resisting arrest.
At sentencing (August 2011) the court imposed a 4-year prison term and various fines and fees.
The court announced it reviewed the presentence investigation report (PSI) and considered a public defender reimbursement under 725 ILCS 5/113-3.1, proposing $400 given a jury trial and defendant’s work history.
The court asked if defendant or counsel had anything to say; defendant shook his head and said “No,” and counsel likewise had nothing to add.
On appeal, Dunlap argued the court erred by imposing the $400 reimbursement because it failed to consider his affidavit of financial condition as required by section 113-3.1(a).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by imposing a $400 public defender reimbursement without expressly considering defendant’s affidavit of financial condition	The State: court properly reviewed PSI and other materials when determining reimbursement amount	Dunlap: court failed to consider his affidavit of financial condition as required by statute	Court affirmed: defendant affirmatively acquiesced at sentencing, waiving the claim; sentencing court’s reliance on PSI and other materials was sufficient

People v. Bowens, 407 Ill. App. 3d 1094 (ill. App. Ct.) (distinguishes waiver from forfeiture; affirmative acquiescence defeats plain-error review)
People v. Barbosa, 365 Ill. App. 3d 297 (Ill. App. Ct.) (court may consider PSI or affidavit evidence of financial condition when imposing public defender reimbursement)