People v. Ely, 99 N.E.3d 566

Defendant James H. Ely Jr. was charged with aggravated battery for allegedly grabbing Leah Bratsch, pulling her to the ground, and stomping on her head; neighbors corroborated her testimony.
The alleged battery occurred 10–15 feet from an alley; the trial judge found that distance met “on or about a public way” and convicted defendant after the defendant waived a jury and elected a bench trial.
Before the bench trial began, a bailiff informed the court the defendant would need to be shackled “according to our protocol,” and the court permitted shackling without conducting the Rule 430/Boose-factor inquiry on the record or offering the defendant an opportunity to be heard.
Defense counsel did not object to shackling at trial; on appeal defendant argued plain error because the evidence on the “on or about a public way” element was close.
The State conceded defendant was entitled to a $5-per-day presentence credit (per diem) against a $30 assessment for the Court Appointed Special Advocates Fund; the parties disputed only the shackling issue.
Trial court sentenced defendant to four years’ imprisonment; the appellate court affirmed the conviction but modified judgment to apply the $30 per diem credit against the assessed $30 fund fee.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court’s failure to follow Rule 430 before shackling (bench trial) requires reversal despite no timely objection	State: Error occurred but defendant forfeited by failing to object; even assuming evidence was close, defendant cannot show the shackles may have affected the court’s judgment	Ely: Plain-error review should apply (first-prong) because evidence on whether location was “on or about a public way” was closely balanced and shackling could have tipped the scales	Forfeiture honored. Although Rule 430 violation was clear error, defendant failed to show prejudice under plain-error first prong; shackling could not have possibly affected the court’s factual determination, so no relief granted on shackling issue
Whether defendant is entitled to per diem credit against the $30 Court Appointed Special Advocates Fund assessment	State: Concedes the $30 assessment is a fine eligible for per diem credit	Ely: Seeks $5-per-day credit against that $30 assessment	Concession accepted; judgment modified to apply $30 per diem credit against that assessment

People v. Boose, 66 Ill. 2d 261 (establishes factors a court must consider before shackling a defendant)
In re Staley, 67 Ill. 2d 33 (shackling rules apply to bench trials)
People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167 (plain-error framework: two prongs and burden to prove prejudice under first prong)
People v. Sebby, 2017 IL 119445 (explains application of first prong where evidence is closely balanced)
People v. Lowe, 202 Ill. App. 3d 648 (construction of phrase "about" as near or in the immediate neighborhood of)
People v. Hyche, 77 Ill. 2d 229 (forfeiture rule for failure to object)
People v. Jones, 223 Ill. 2d 569 (distinguishing fines from costs for per diem-credit purposes)