People v. Folks
406 Ill. App. 3d 300
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2010Background
- Felony defendant James Folks pleaded guilty to unlawful use of a weapon by a felon and aggravated battery in March 2009 under a plea agreement
- The plea agreement sentenced Folks to nine years for count I and concurrent five years for count II, plus mandatory fines/costs including $200 DNA-analysi s and $20 VCVA
- The circuit clerk later sent notices listing the fines and costs; the DNA assessment was marked as waived due to a prior sample
- A handwritten note indicated the DNA sample had been taken in 2004 and the DNA assessment was not imposed
- Folks moved to withdraw his guilty plea; the trial court denied
- On appeal, Folks challenges (a) Rule 604(d) certificate sufficiency, (b) authority of the circuit clerk to impose certain fines and offset rights, and (c) the VCVA assessment amount
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 604(d) certificate sufficiency | People contend the certificate satisfied Rule 604(d) | Folks argues the certificate labeling was improper and ineffective | Certificate satisfied Rule 604(d) and preserved issue |
| Authority to impose drug-court and CAC assessments | People contend clerk could not impose these fines; court may reimpose | Folks argues clerk lacked authority and fines should be offset by custody credit | Clerk's fines vacated; court reimposed $10 drug-court and $15 CAC fines with custody credit applied |
| VCVA assessment amount | State argues $24 is proper; $20 was void, but DNA credit allows offset | Folks argues $4 maximum under statute and concerns about prior waivers | VCVA set at $24 after vacating $20; DNA assessment restored with credit; total fines adjusted |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Shirley, 181 Ill.2d 359 (1998) (Rule 604(d) certificate review requires substantial compliance)
- People v. Grice, 371 Ill.App.3d 813 (2007) (Rule 604(d) compliance and remand standards)
- People v. Sulton, 395 Ill.App.3d 186 (2009) (Classification of drug-court and CAC assessments as fines)
- People v. Jones, 397 Ill.App.3d 651 (2009) (Children's Advocacy Center assessment treated as fine)
- People v. Evangelista, 393 Ill.App.3d 395 (2009) (Court may reimpose mandatory VCVA assessment)
- People v. Thurston, 255 Ill.App.3d 512 (1994) (Oral pronouncement vs. written order in sentencing)
- People v. Long, 398 Ill.App.3d 1028 (2010) (DNA-analysis fee imposition and credits)
- People v. Malchow, 193 Ill.2d 413 (2000) (State may challenge a sentence on appeal; void when below minimum)