People v. McClinton
27 N.E.3d 712
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- Defendant Howard McClinton was convicted by a jury of delivery of less than one gram of cocaine and delivery within 1,000 feet of a church; sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment on the Class 2 felony.
- At sentencing the State moved for an order requiring McClinton to reimburse the county $2,958 for appointed counsel’s services. The motion alleged ability to pay but included no supporting facts.
- McClinton had filed a motion claiming 252 days of presentence custody, seeking $5-per-day credit under 725 ILCS 5/110-14 (totaling $1,260). The written order acknowledged 252 days, but the clerk’s cost sheet did not reflect application of the credit.
- At sentencing the court relied on the presentence investigation report and McClinton’s allocution to find he had the ability to pay $2,958; McClinton was not given notice of or an opportunity to present evidence at a separate reimbursement hearing.
- McClinton’s post-sentencing motion was denied; he appealed, raising (1) the lack of the statutorily required hearing before imposing the public defender reimbursement fee and (2) failure to properly apply the $5-per-day presentence custody credit to fines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly imposed a $2,958 public defender reimbursement without the Section 113-3.1 hearing | The State argued defendant had ability to pay and the court’s reliance on the PSI and allocution constituted sufficient inquiry (some sort of a hearing) within the statutory period | McClinton argued the court failed to provide the notice and opportunity to present evidence required by 725 ILCS 5/113-3.1 and thus violated due process | Court vacated the fee and remanded for a proper Section 113-3.1 hearing, finding the trial court’s limited inquiry insufficient under the statute’s procedural safeguards but concluding remand for a hearing was appropriate under Somers |
| Whether the $5-per-day presentence custody credit was properly applied to fines | State agreed credit was due but the clerk did not reflect it on the cost sheet | McClinton argued he was entitled to $1,260 credit (252 days × $5) applied against specified fines | Court ordered the clerk to apply the $1,260 credit to the fines (including drug assessment, street-value fine, Trauma Center Fund fine, and State Police Services Fund fine) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Somers, 2013 IL 114054 (interpreting Section 113-3.1 and remand for proper ability-to-pay hearing)
- People v. Cook, 81 Ill.2d 176 (holding predecessor statute unconstitutional for failing to require ability-to-pay hearing)
- People v. Love, 177 Ill.2d 550 (defendant does not waive right to procedural safeguards by failing to object)
- Anthony v. Gilbrath, 396 Ill. 125 (definition of a "hearing" as judicial examination of issues)