People v. Ford
2016 IL App (3d) 130650
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Defendant Jalin Ford was charged after his vehicle collided with a Peoria MEG unit van during a buy‑bust; bench trial resulted in acquittal on criminal damage but conviction for reckless conduct.
- Officers testified Ford, upon seeing the MEG van approaching in a narrow north driveway, accelerated and collided with the van; defendant testified he was rammed and did not intend contact.
- The van sustained repairable front-end damage; repair estimate $1,836.44.
- Trial court sentenced Ford to one day in jail, 18 months’ probation, and ordered restitution for the repair cost to the Peoria MEG unit; clerk later assessed $902.50 in fines/fees.
- On appeal Ford challenged sufficiency of evidence for reckless conduct, the restitution order, and the clerk’s imposition of fines/fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for reckless conduct | Testimony showed Ford accelerated when he saw the van, creating a known risk and causing collision | Ford contends he tried to avoid the van and did not act recklessly | Affirmed — officers’ testimony supported a finding Ford acted recklessly; a reasonable person would have slowed or stopped |
| Entitlement of law enforcement agency to restitution | State: MEG suffered out‑of‑pocket repair costs proximately caused by defendant’s criminal conduct | Ford: Police agency is not a “victim” under restitution statute | Affirmed — restitution valid where vehicle was damaged as direct result of defendant’s conduct; agency may be compensated for repair costs |
| Clerk’s imposition of fines and fees | State concedes clerk improperly imposed assessments and agrees remand is appropriate | Ford: Clerk lacked authority; assessments and any fines should be vacated and credited for presentence custody | Vacated assessments and fines; remanded so trial court may enter an itemized order of costs and apply $5/day presentence credit |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Hopkins, 201 Ill. 2d 26 (rule for sufficiency review)
- People v. Brajcki, 150 Ill. App. 3d 506 (driver who accelerates upon seeing danger can be reckless)
- People v. Mikyska, 179 Ill. App. 3d 795 (reasonable driver would reduce speed or brake to avoid collision)
- People v. Danenberger, 364 Ill. App. 3d 936 (definition of “victim” for restitution; gov’t agency generally not a victim but may recover for direct property damage)
- People v. Derengoski, 247 Ill. App. 3d 751 (law enforcement expenses for investigation are not recoverable as restitution)
- United States v. Donaby, 349 F.3d 1046 (government entitled to restitution for damage to police vehicle caused by defendant)