People v. Grant
90 N.E.3d 1040
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Defendant Nathan Grant pleaded guilty in Dec. 2013 to possession of a controlled substance and agreed to a two-year prison sentence to be served consecutively to an existing three-year sentence from an earlier felony.
- Defendant did not file any postplea or postsentencing motion under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) within 30 days of sentencing.
- In June 2015 (more than 30 days after sentencing), defendant filed a pro se motion to amend the mittimus, asking the court to clarify that his two-year term began after the prior three-year term (not after the prior term’s MSR) and to order DOC to calculate his sentence accordingly.
- The trial court denied the mittimus motion by docket entry, stating the matter had been addressed in prior orders; defendant appealed, but conceded the mittimus issue was moot because he had fully served his sentence.
- On appeal defendant raised, for the first time, that several fines imposed after sentencing were void because they were improperly imposed by the circuit clerk; the State acknowledged the apparent clerk-imposed fines but argued the appellate court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate court has jurisdiction to review denial of a motion to amend mittimus filed >30 days after sentencing | State: appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because no timely Rule 604(d) motion and the denial is not a final appealable order | Grant: challenges clerks’ postjudgment fines after abandoning mittimus claim | Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; trial court’s original judgments remain in place |
| Whether appellate court may consider fines-and-fees challenges raised for first time on appeal | State: such challenges should be resolved in trial court; appellate review improper without timely preservation | Grant: seeks vacatur of clerk-imposed fines raised for first time on appeal | Appellate court will not address unpreserved fines-and-fees claims; encourage trial-level resolution |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 830 N.E.2d 467 (2005) (explaining narrow scope of plain-error review)
- People v. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916 (2015) (addressing appellate review limits and preservation issues)