People v. Gutierrez
2012 IL 111590
| Ill. | 2012Background
- Gutierrez convicted of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child and sentenced to 20 years.
- Appellant argued several fines/fees were improperly imposed, including a $250 public defender fee.
- Appellate court allowed supplementation with a Party Finance Summary Query showing the fee imposed by the Lake County circuit clerk.
- Appellate court vacated the fee under Love/113-3.1(a) but remanded for a hearing on ability to pay per Schneider; 90-day limit discussed.
- State argued appellate jurisdiction and that clerk lacked authority to impose; court questioned authority and timing.
- Court ultimately holds the fee must be vacated outright as the clerk imposed it without proper proceedings and no motion by State or court
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review the fee | Gutierrez argued jurisdiction existed because review covered void clerk actions | State contends improper notice/order and lack of final circuit order limited review | Jurisdiction existed; appeal covered defendant's conviction and void clerk order |
| Whether the public defender fee could be reviewed when imposed by a clerk | Gutierrez asserts clerk lacked authority to impose and remedy lies in vacatur | State argues remand could fashion proper proceedings | Clerk lacked authority; fee review valid and vacated |
| Whether the fee should be vacated outright or remanded for a hearing on ability to pay | Gutierrez seeks outright vacatur given no proper hearing | State/Schneider approach supports remand for hearing | Fee must be vacated outright; remand inappropriate on these facts |
| Whether time limits in 113-3.1(a) are mandatory or directory | Gutierrez argues time limits not satisfied; remedy remains vacatur | State argues directory nature allows remand | Court does not need to decide mandatory vs directory here; vacatur required on record |
| Whether the State or trial court sought the fee, affecting remand | No motion by State or court; clerk imposed fee | State contends fee could be sought in proper proceedings | Clerk’s action improper; remedy vacatur acknowledges lack of proper seeking |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Love, 177 Ill. 2d 550 (1997) (remand for proper 113-3.1(a) hearing to protect due process rights)
- People v. Schneider, 403 Ill. App. 3d 301 (2010) (remand for hearing despite time limit; Love binding)
- People v. Smith, 228 Ill. 2d 95 (2008) (liberal notice of appeal; scope of review depends on notice language)
- People v. Lewis, 234 Ill. 2d 32 (2009) (notice of appeal sufficiency for conviction review; index of issues)
- People v. Robinson, 217 Ill. 2d 43 (2005) (mandatory/directory analysis when no consequences stated)
- People v. Delvillar, 235 Ill. 2d 507 (2009) (timing of statutory provisions; directory vs mandatory)