People v. Grigorov
91 N.E.3d 390
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Defendant George Grigorov pled guilty (April 10, 2014) to aggravated DUI and driving on a revoked license in a negotiated plea; sentenced to concurrent prison terms and "all mandatory fines, fees, and court costs."
- He did not file a post-sentence motion or timely direct appeal.
- In August 2014 he filed a section 5-9-2 petition seeking revocation of $6,000 in assessments based solely on alleged inability to pay.
- The trial court denied the petition on September 17, 2014; Grigorov appealed.
- On appeal he abandoned inability-to-pay as a basis and instead sought (1) presentencing detention credit of $975 against fines under 725 ILCS 5/110-14 and (2) relief for various allegedly erroneous fines and fees never raised below.
- The State conceded entitlement to the $975 credit; the appellate court addressed jurisdictional limits for the remaining newly raised fee/fine challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant can obtain presentencing detention credit under section 110-14 raised for first time on collateral appeal | State: concede credit is due | Grigorov: entitled to $975 credit for 195 days served; may raise at any time by application | Allowed — the credit may be applied at any stage; reduce assessments by $975 |
| Whether appellate court has jurisdiction to review newly raised challenges to fines and fees in a section 5-9-2 collateral appeal | State: section 5-9-2 does not authorize collateral attack on unraised sentence errors or fees; Rule 604(d) bars late direct appeal | Grigorov: issues are "inextricably intertwined" with his 5-9-2 claim and should be heard; Rule 615(b) permits modification on appeal | Denied — court lacks jurisdiction to consider fines/fees challenges raised for first time on appeal; dismissal required under Rule 604(d) and Castleberry jurisprudence |
| Whether fees/fines imposed without statutory authorization are void and reviewable at any time post-Castleberry | State: Castleberry limits void-judgment doctrine; such challenges are now voidable, not void | Grigorov: McCray suggests fees remain void and always challengeable | Rejected — Castleberry controls; most fines/fees are not subject to perpetual collateral attack absent jurisdictional or constitutional defect |
| Whether plain-error review (Ill. S. Ct. R. 615) permits addressing forfeited fees/fines claims | State: fees are minor and not errors affecting substantial rights; plain error not warranted | Grigorov: requests plain-error review under Rule 615(b) to modify order | Rejected — alleged errors are insubstantial and do not meet the plain-error standard; Rule 615 does not override forfeiture rules |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Flowers, 208 Ill. 2d 291 (recognizing Rule 604(d) and limits on appeals after guilty pleas)
- People v. Caballero, 228 Ill. 2d 79 (defendant may seek per‑diem credit at any stage; appellate courts may grant if record supports)
- People v. Mingo, 403 Ill. App. 3d 968 (section 5-9-2 is a freestanding collateral remedy allowing financial relief at any time)
- People v. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916 (abolished the void sentence rule; unauthorized sentences are voidable, not perpetually void)
- People v. Lewis, 234 Ill. 2d 32 (plain-error review appropriate when sentencing process is fundamentally unfair, but not for trivial assessment errors)