People v. Grigorov
91 N.E.3d 390
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- Defendant George Grigorov pled guilty to aggravated DUI and driving on a revoked/suspended license on April 10, 2014 pursuant to a negotiated plea, receiving concurrent prison terms and "all mandatory fines, fees, and court costs."
- He did not file a motion to withdraw his plea or a timely notice of appeal within 30 days after sentencing.
- In August 2014 Grigorov filed a section 5-9-2 petition asking the trial court to vacate $6,000 in assessed penalties (including a $5,000 DUI offense fine) based solely on inability to pay; the petition was denied on September 17, 2014.
- On appeal from the denial of the section 5-9-2 petition, Grigorov abandoned the inability-to-pay argument and instead sought (1) presentencing detention credit of $975 under section 110-14 and (2) review of various fines and fees as erroneous.
- The State conceded entitlement to the $975 presentencing credit; the appellate court considered jurisdictional limits for the newly raised fines-and-fees challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant may obtain presentencing detention credit under 725 ILCS 5/110-14 in this collateral appeal | State conceded defendant is entitled to the credit; section 110-14 permits application at any stage | Grigorov sought $975 credit for 195 days and asked that it be applied to assessed fines | Allowed: Court granted $975 credit and ordered assessments reduced accordingly |
| Whether this court has jurisdiction to review new challenges to fines and fees raised for first time on appeal from a section 5-9-2 denial | State: section 5-9-2 does not authorize collateral attack on the underlying sentence or fees; issues not raised below are forfeited | Grigorov: fines/fees issues are "inextricably intertwined" with inability-to-pay petition and should be reviewed | Denied: Court lacked jurisdiction to consider those new challenges and dismissed them as forfeited |
| Whether fees/fines asserted to be statutorily unauthorized are void and reviewable at any time despite Castleberry | State: Castleberry abolished the void-sentence rule; such challenges are voidable and forfeited if not raised timely | Grigorov relied on out-of-circuit and some appellate authority treating some fees as void/collateral consequences | Denied: Court followed Castleberry reasoning — fees/fines not shown to be void under narrow exceptions and are forfeited if not timely raised |
| Whether Rule 615 or Rule 604(d) permits review of fines/fees despite no timely trial-court motion | State: Rule 615 does not override forfeiture; Rule 604(d) bars appeals from guilty plea sentences absent timely postplea motions | Grigorov: appellate review under Rule 615(b) should allow modification | Denied: Rules do not create jurisdiction; failure to file timely Rule 604(d) motion precludes merits review |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Flowers, 208 Ill.2d 291 (discusses Rule 604(d) and jurisdictional limits following a guilty plea)
- People v. Caballero, 228 Ill.2d 79 (section 110-14 credit may be sought at any stage if record supports relief)
- People v. Mingo, 403 Ill. App.3d 968 (section 5-9-2 is a freestanding collateral action permitting financial-relief petitions)
- People v. Lewis, 234 Ill.2d 32 (plain-error review appropriate where statutorily required evidentiary basis for a fine was entirely lacking)