People v. Johnson
959 N.E.2d 1150
Ill.2011Background
- Johnson was charged with two counts of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and convicted of the lesser-included offense of possession of a controlled substance after a bench trial.
- He was in custody for 344 days before sentencing.
- At sentencing, he received an extended term of five years and the court imposed various fines and fees, including a $200 DNA analysis charge under 730 ILCS 5/5-4-3(j).
- The appellate court affirmed the convictions and sentence but modified some fines/fees, leaving the $200 DNA charge intact as non-offsettable.
- The issue on appeal was whether the DNA analysis charge is eligible for presentence incarceration credit under 110-14, which offsets fines only.
- The court clarifies the DNA charge is a one-time, compensatory fee, not a punitive fine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the DNA analysis charge subject to presentence offset? | Johnson argues the DNA charge is a fine and eligible for 110-14 offset. | The People contend the DNA charge is compensatory, not punitive, and not offsettable. | DNA charge is not a fine; not offsettable by presentence credit. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Tolliver, 363 Ill.App.3d 94 (2006) (offset applies to fines, not other costs)
- People v. Jones, 223 Ill.2d 569 (2006) (definition of fines and presentence credit scope)
- Marshall, 242 Ill.2d 285 (2011) (DNA fee is compensatory and not punitive; one-time charge)
- Rigsby, 405 Ill.App.3d 916 (2010) (one-time DNA analysis fee; not repeated)
- People v. White, 333 Ill.App.3d 777 (2002) (punitive nature of penalties and fines)
- State v. Brewster, 218 P.3d 249 (2009) (DNA charge not punitive under Washington law; policy and effect considerations)