People v. Griffin
82 N.E.3d 186
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- Defendant Joseph Griffin pleaded guilty in two Cook County cases (burglary and unlawful use of a weapon) in April 2014 and received concurrent prison terms; he paid fines and fees.
- More than 30 days after sentencing, Griffin filed a pro se motion to correct the mittimus nunc pro tunc to change his custody date for presentence credit; the trial court denied the motion.
- Griffin appealed pro se from the denial, but on appeal abandoned the custody-date claim and instead raised new challenges to several assessed fines and his entitlement to $5/day presentence detention credit against certain assessments.
- The State Appellate Defender was later assigned and the State agreed to revest jurisdiction for appellate consideration of fees in this case, but generally the State may or may not concede revestment in other cases.
- The appellate court considered (1) whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal and (2) whether Griffin could raise new fines-and-fees claims on appeal despite failing to file a timely Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) motion.
- The court dismissed the appeal because Griffin failed to file a timely Rule 604(d) motion and the denial of his mittimus motion was not a final, appealable order; it declined to reach the merits of the fines-and-fees challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate court may review fines/fees raised for first time on appeal from denial of mittimus motion | Appellee (People) argued appellate jurisdiction lacking unless Rule 604(d) complied with; revestment and concessions cannot create jurisdiction where none exists | Griffin argued he may raise fines/fees on appeal and obtain presentence credit; also invoked revestment and that §110‑14 permits application at any time | Appeal dismissed: failure to file Rule 604(d) precludes merits review; denial of mittimus was not a final, appealable order, so court lacked jurisdiction to consider new fees/credits |
| Whether trial court retained jurisdiction to hear mittimus motion filed >30 days after sentencing | People conceded trial court retained jurisdiction to correct clerical errors | Griffin asserted clerical error (wrong custody date) | Trial court had jurisdiction to consider the mittimus motion, because it alleged clerical error, but that did not make the denial appealable |
| Whether revestment doctrine permits appellate review of issues not raised below | People argued revestment cannot bypass Rule 604(d) or create appellate jurisdiction over new issues | Griffin argued parties’ conduct and State’s agreement could revest jurisdiction | Court rejected revestment as a way to circumvent Rule 604(d) and to permit appellate review of issues never presented to the trial court |
| Whether §110‑14 (presentence credit) can be raised for the first time on appeal | Griffin cited cases allowing §110‑14 claims to be raised on appeal when appeal properly before the court | People argued Caballero limited to properly filed appeals; cannot be used to create jurisdiction where none exists | Court declined to extend Caballero; §110‑14 claims must be raised in a proceeding properly before the court; here appellate jurisdiction was lacking |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Flowers, 208 Ill.2d 291 (superseding rule that failure to file timely Rule 604(d) motion generally requires dismissal of appeal) (explains Rule 604(d) is condition precedent to appellate review of guilty plea convictions)
- People v. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916 (clarifies void-judgment rule abolished for sentencing statutory noncompliance; jurisdiction unaffected by statutory sentencing defects)
- Beck v. Stepp, 144 Ill.2d 232 (trial court may correct clerical errors in record at any time)
- People v. Caballero, 228 Ill.2d 79 (section 110-14 presentence credit may be considered on appeal where appeal properly before court)
- People v. Herron, 215 Ill.2d 167 (plain-error doctrine is narrow; appellate courts limited to errors affecting substantial rights)