People v. Hammons
138 N.E.3d 31
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- Gary G. Hammons pleaded guilty (June 10, 2014) to residential burglary and theft; sentenced Sept. 22, 2014 to 8 years (burglary) and 30 months’ probation (theft).
- Two probation conditions challenged on appeal (no trial-court objection): (1) do not associate with anyone with a misdemeanor or felony drug conviction; (2) submit to warrantless searches by probation officer of person, property, vehicles, residence/curtilage.
- Trial court ordered $42,529 restitution but credited $21,382 already paid, leaving net $21,147; circuit clerk’s records later showed $42,529 owed.
- Clerk also assessed various fees (court finance, violent-crime victims fund, medical cost) and two $80 clerk fees; State concedes some clerk-imposed assessments were improper.
- Defendant raised constitutionality and reasonableness of probation conditions for first time on appeal and claimed counsel was ineffective for failing to object; he also sought correction/vacatur of clerk-imposed fines/fee entries and the restitution balance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether probation condition barring association with persons having drug convictions is reasonable and constitutional | Condition is reasonably related to defendant’s drug history, offense, and rehabilitation | Overbroad infringement of First Amendment freedom of association | Forfeited by failure to object; not plain error; condition not clearly or obviously unreasonable or unconstitutional |
| Whether probation condition permitting warrantless searches is reasonable | Condition is reasonable and courts have read a reasonableness/"reasonable suspicion" constraint into such conditions | Unreasonable because it lacks an explicit reasonable-suspicion requirement | Forfeited by failure to object; not plain error because Eiland and related authority support a reasonableness qualification |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the two conditions | N/A | Counsel’s omission prejudiced defendant; performance was objectively unreasonable | No; omission could be strategic or reasonable given likely futility; Strickland not satisfied |
| Whether appellate court may review clerk-imposed fines/duplicate clerk fee and clerk’s restitution balance | Clerk-imposed fines/fees and incorrect clerk restitution entry should be vacated/corrected | State concedes those clerk actions were improper but contends appellate jurisdiction is limited | Appellate court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over clerk-imposed fines/fees and clerk’s payment-status entries under People v. Vara; cannot review or correct those clerk-only entries on this appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill.2d 551 (clarifies plain-error doctrine)
- People v. Goossens, 2015 IL 118347 (probation conditions must be reasonable and relate to offense or rehabilitation)
- In re J.W., 204 Ill.2d 50 (distinguishes challenges to conditions of probation from challenges to sentence for Rule 604(d) purposes)
- People v. Lampitok, 207 Ill.2d 231 (searches of probationers require reasonable-suspicion balancing under some circumstances)
- People v. Vara, 2018 IL 121823 (appellate review limited to final judgments; clerk-imposed assessments not part of sentence)
- People v. Scharlau, 141 Ill.2d 180 (issues not raised below are forfeited)
- People v. Holloway, 86 Ill.2d 78 (same)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance two-prong test)