2017 IL App (5th) 140493
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- Robin Frazier, a counselor at Kemmerer Village (a residential treatment facility for minors), drove a 17-year-old resident (B.H.) off campus; at a hotel during the trip B.H. alleged Frazier performed oral sex on her. Frazier denied sexual contact.
- Investigation by DCFS/Illinois State Police followed; Frazier allegedly admitted to oral sex during an interview (statement not recorded or written). She was charged over a year later with criminal sexual assault based on a position of trust, supervision, or authority.
- At a bench trial, defense counsel moved to dismiss mid-trial, arguing the information failed to allege the nature of the position of trust as required by People v. Sparks. The court continued the trial to allow the State to respond and later denied the motion.
- The trial court found Frazier guilty; she was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment and three years to life mandatory supervised release, with fines/fees assessed totaling $597 (the court found some statutory fines uncollectible).
- Frazier appealed, raising (1) ineffective assistance for filing the motion to dismiss mid-trial and (2) challenges to the calculation of certain fines/fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Frazier) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s mid-trial motion to dismiss for deficient information constituted ineffective assistance | Counsel’s timing was a tactical choice and did not prejudice defendant; the State would have refiled/amended charges if dismissed | Filing mid-trial subjected defendant to a higher standard and deprived her of effective counsel | No ineffective assistance: defendant failed Strickland prejudice prong because any pretrial dismissal would have led to amendment/refiling and no prejudice shown |
| Whether fines/fees ($10 State Police fee and $100 VCVA fee) were improperly imposed/calculated | Forfeiture: defendant failed to object at sentencing or move to reconsider; small amounts do not warrant plain-error review | The assessed amounts were incorrect and should be reduced ($10→$5; $100→$80) | Forfeited on appeal. No plain error; court affirmed fines/fees as imposed and noted trial court actually found other statutory fines uncollectible, reducing total exposure |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance requires deficient performance and prejudice)
- People v. Sparks, 221 Ill. App. 3d 546 (charge must allege nature of position of trust/supervision)
- People v. Spann, 332 Ill. App. 3d 425 (example of pervasive ineffective-assistance errors distinguishing acceptable strategic choices)
- People v. Davison, 292 Ill. App. 3d 981 (no Strickland prejudice where dismissal would have led to state amendment/refiling)