People v. Hible
2016 IL App (4th) 131096
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- William Hible pleaded guilty to aggravated battery in June 2007 and was sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment; the trial court did not orally impose fines at sentencing but the circuit clerk later assessed several fees/charges.
- Charges entered by the clerk included: $50 court finance fee, $2 Anti-Crime Fund charge, $4 Youth Diversion fee, and a $20 charge under the Violent Crime Victims Assistance Act (calculated from fines).
- In December 2011 Hible filed a petition under 735 ILCS 5/2-1401 claiming actual innocence and ineffective assistance; the trial court denied it and this court previously remanded for proper proceedings.
- On remand the trial court dismissed the petition for want of prosecution; Hible appealed, but the appeal here concerns only the fines/fees imposed by the clerk and related credit and costs issues.
- The parties agreed several of the clerk-entered charges were fines improperly entered by the nonjudicial clerk and therefore void; the State sought a statutory fee for defending the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Hible) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether fines entered by the circuit clerk are valid | The clerk-entered charges were proper costs/fees | Clerk lacks authority to impose fines; fines are void and only judge may impose | Clerk-imposed fines are void; only judge may impose fines; vacated clerk-imposed fines |
| Validity and disposition of specific charges (court fee, Anti-Crime, Youth Diversion, Act charge) | Some charges are fines and should be reimposed or recalculated by court | The challenged charges were improperly entered by clerk and must be vacated or recalculated by judge | Vacated clerk-imposed $50 court finance fee (to be reimposed by judge); vacated $2 Anti-Crime Fund (should not be reimposed because it applies only as probation condition); vacated Youth Diversion fee (to be reimposed by judge); Act charge to be recalculated by court on remand |
| Presentence credit applicability to reimposed fines | Not disputed by State; State concedes credit applies | Hible seeks $5/day credit for 121 days toward any reimposed fines | Hible entitled to $605 credit (121 days × $5) to be applied against any reimposed creditable fines on remand |
| State's request for statutory State's Attorney fee for defending appeal | State seeks statutory fee as costs because it defended appeal | Hible argues State conceded issues and did not defend, so fee not warranted | Denied: State conceded the controlling issues and did not defend them, so no statutory appellate fee awarded |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Castleberry, 43 N.E.3d 932 (Ill. 2015) (abolished broad "void sentence" rule; only judgments entered without jurisdiction are void)
- People v. Gutierrez, 962 N.E.2d 437 (Ill. 2012) (fee entered by clerk was unauthorized and void)
- People v. Larue, 10 N.E.3d 959 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014) (clerk-imposed fines are void)
- People v. Williams, 920 N.E.2d 1060 (Ill. 2009) (State may recover statutory appellate fee when it successfully defends issues)
- People v. Graves, 919 N.E.2d 906 (Ill. 2009) (distinguishing fines from fees; Youth Diversion charge is a fine)
- People v. Smith, 18 N.E.3d 912 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014) (court finance fee is a fine that only judge may impose)
- People v. Jernigan, 23 N.E.3d 650 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014) (Anti-Crime Fund charge is a fine and generally a probation condition)
- People v. Warren, 16 N.E.3d 13 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014) (analysis distinguishing fines and fees; clerk cannot impose fines)
- People v. Gosier, 792 N.E.2d 1266 (Ill. 2003) (void judgments may be attacked at any time)
- People v. Denson, 946 N.E.2d 933 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011) (where State concedes the sole issue on appeal and did not defend, statutory appellate fee is not awarded)