People v. Jones-Beard
139 N.E.3d 1027
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- Defendant Danarius Jones-Beard was convicted after a bench trial of aggravated vehicular hijacking and armed robbery for using a realistic, heavy BB gun to steal a Honda and $8 from two men. He had prior juvenile adjudications and an adult conviction; he was on parole at the time of the offense.
- Police stopped Jones-Beard later that day driving the stolen Honda; officers observed a BB gun on the seat and recovered the cash from the car. One victim identified Jones-Beard in a lineup; Jones-Beard gave a written and oral statement confessing.
- At a Rule 402 conference the court offered a 7-year sentence in exchange for a guilty plea; Jones-Beard rejected the offer, proceeded to trial, and received concurrent 15-year terms (within the statutory range).
- At sentencing the court expressly considered mitigating facts (age, troubled childhood, DCFS involvement) but emphasized Jones-Beard’s extensive criminal history and parole status; motion to reconsider sentence was denied.
- Postjudgment, the court imposed assorted fines, fees, and costs totaling $744; on appeal the parties agreed some assessments were improper and the defense sought presentence custody credit against certain charges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 15-year concurrent sentences were excessive | Sentences appropriate given seriousness and criminal history | Sentences excessive given nonviolent nature, youth, troubled childhood | Affirmed: within statutory range; court considered mitigation and did not abuse discretion |
| Whether sentence reflects an improper "trial tax" for rejecting plea | State: higher sentence reflects appropriate weighing of factors, not punishment for trial | Rejected 7-year offer; 15-year sentence is punishment for exercising right to trial | Affirmed: no clear evidence court penalized trial demand; twofold increase not outrageously disproportionate |
| Whether electronic citation ($5) and DNA ($250) fees were properly assessed | State agreed they were improper | Defense sought vacatur | Vacated both: e-citation inapplicable to felonies; DNA fee improper where defendant already in database |
| Whether various assessments are "fines" (subject to presentence credit) or "fees" (not) | State: most assessments are fees reimbursing prosecutorial costs | Defense: several assessments are fines and should be offset by $5/day presentence credit | Court: $50 court system fee and $15 state police fee are fines and offset; other challenged assessments (felony complaint, automation, document storage, records automation) are fees and not offset per controlling precedent; order modified to new total $424 |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Alexander, 239 Ill. 2d 205 (trial court must consider aggravating and mitigating factors)
- People v. Ward, 113 Ill. 2d 516 (court may not penalize defendant for exercising right to trial; harsher sentence must be clearly shown to result from trial demand)
- People v. Dennis, 28 Ill. App. 3d 74 (outrageously higher sentence relative to plea offer may indicate punishment for demanding trial)
- People v. Jones, 223 Ill. 2d 569 (presentence custody credit applies only to fines, not fees)
- People v. Clark, 2018 IL 122495 (certain small automation and records assessments are compensatory fees, not fines)