People v. Johnson
973 N.E.2d 997
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Defendant Omar Johnson was convicted of first degree murder and related offenses with lengthy prison terms.
- He pursued direct appeals and postconviction challenges, which were ultimately unsuccessful.
- In 2008 he filed a petition for relief from judgment under section 2-1401; the petition was found frivolous and untimely after dismissal and remand proceedings.
- The circuit court assessed $155 in costs and fees for the frivolous petition ($90 filing fee, $50 State’s Attorney fee, $15 mailing fees) to be deducted from the prisoner trust account.
- Defendant appealed challenging only the authority to assess the fees and the IDOC-deduction, not the frivolous finding itself, and urged that the filing fee was not appropriate.
- The appellate court affirmed both the amount of fees and the method of collection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to assess costs and fees | Johnson argues the court lacked authority to impose the fees. | Johnson asserts the fees exceed what §22-105 permits and the filing fee was inappropriate. | Fees properly assessed under §22-105; filing fee authorized. |
| Deduction of filing fee from prisoner account | State contends deduction is permissible as a court cost. | Johnson contends filing fees are not court costs eligible for deduction. | Filing fee deductible from prisoner account as a court cost. |
| Authority for $50 State's Attorney fee | State contends statutory authority exists to recover attorney fees for defending frivolous petitions. | Johnson argues lack of specific provision for section 2-1401 petitions. | State's Attorney fee authorized under 55 ILCS 5/4-2002.1; applicable to collateral proceedings. |
| Use of habeas corpus statute to support fee | Statute broadly permits such fees in collateral proceedings. | Gutierrez-based argument about non-applicability if no defense occurred; not persuasive here. | Statutory language broad enough to include this petition; supports imposition. |
Key Cases Cited
- Okumura v. Nisei Bowlium, Inc., 43 Ill. App. 3d 753 (1976) (section 2-1401 petition treated as a civil pleading; fees to deter frivolous filings)
- People v. Conick, 232 Ill. 2d 132 (2008) (costs include broad range of fees; aim to deter frivolous petitions)
- People v. Carter, 377 Ill. App. 3d 91 (2007) (interpretation of costs/fee provisions in frivolous filings)
- People v. Gale, 376 Ill. App. 3d 344 (2007) (broader reading of costs applicable to prisoner filings)
- People v. Smith, 383 Ill. App. 3d 1078 (2008) (filing fee as a cost; supports deduction from prisoner accounts)
- People v. Dixon, 409 Ill. App. 3d 915 (2011) (affirmative stance on broad application of 22-105 costs)
- People v. Jarrett, 399 Ill. App. 3d 715 (2010) (legislative history supporting deterrence of frivolous filings)