People v. Marshall, 242 Ill. 2d 285

Marshall had prior felony convictions that required DNA submission and a $200 analysis fee; his DNA was already registered in CODIS before the present sentencing.
At sentencing for first degree murder, the court imposed 33 years and a mandatory DNA testing assessment of $200.
Marshall challenged the trial court’s authority to order another DNA sample and another $200 fee, asserting his DNA was already on file.
The appellate court held the issue forfeited but affirmed the trial court’s order under section 5-4-3; this Court granted leave to appeal.
The majority holds that section 5-4-3 authorizes DNA submission and the $200 fee only when the defendant is not already registered, preventing duplicative sampling and fees.
The judgment is reversed in part: the appellate court’s ruling is reversed, and the trial court’s order to require an additional DNA sample and fee is vacated; conviction affirmed in all other respects.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does 5-4-3 require a new DNA sample and fee if already on file?	Marshall argues the statute bars duplicative sampling and fees for previously registered DNA.	People maintain the statute authorizes additional sampling and fees as needed.	No; only one sample/fee is required if already registered.
Is section 5-4-3 ambiguous and subject to extrinsic aids? (statutory interpretation)	Marshall relies on silence in the statute to argue against duplicative sampling.	People rely on ambiguity and agency interpretation to permit multiple samples/fees.	The statute is ambiguous; extrinsic aids, including agency interpretation, may be considered.
May a court order additional DNA submission and fee for a defendant previously registered when not otherwise covered?	Marshall contends there is no statutory authorization for multiple samples/fees.	People argue a court has discretion under 5-4-3(a-5) to order sampling in other circumstances.	Court authority is limited to cases where the defendant is not yet registered.

People v. Garvin, 219 Ill. 2d 104 (2006) (DNA database purpose and population scope)
People v. Rigsby, 405 Ill. App. 3d 916 (2010) (ambiguous statute permits extrinsic aids; supports single-sample interpretation)
People v. Evangelista, 393 Ill. App. 3d 395 (2009) (one DNA sample suffices; fee should be vacated when sampling is duplicative)
People v. Willis, 402 Ill. App. 3d 47 (2010) (repeated DNA analysis fee discussed in light of Evangelista)
People v. Grayer, 403 Ill. App. 3d 797 (2010) (statutory silence on duplicative sampling analyzed; endorses broader interpretation)
Bomar, 405 Ill. App. 3d 139 (2010) (extrinsic aids may be used where statute is silent)
Beachem, 229 Ill. 2d 237 (2008) (principles of statutory interpretation and avoidance of meaningless provisions)
Williams, 239 Ill. 2d 503 (2011) (de novo review for statutory interpretation)