People v. Millsap
2012 IL App (4th) 110668
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Defendant Millsap was charged with three counts of aggravated battery after an October 6, 2010 incident at a high school field; he was convicted at a bench trial on counts I and III, with count II merged into count I, and sentenced to concurrent four-year terms with credits and various assessments ordered.
- Counts I and III were based on the same physical act of striking the victim in the face; count II involved insulting or provoking contact.
- The trial court imposed a $40 CAC assessment, a $25 VCVA assessment, court costs, and other fees; the CAC assessment exceeded statutory maximums in the applicable Counties Code.
- On appeal, Millsap contends: (1) one-act, one-crime requires vacating one aggravated battery conviction; (2) CAC assessment should be reduced; (3) VCVA assessment should be reduced to $4.
- The appellate court agreed to review under plain error for the one-act, one-crime issue, remanded to determine the less serious offense, and modify the fines and fees.
- The court ultimately remanded with directions to vacate the less serious conviction, vacate the corresponding CAC assessment, and reduce the VCVA assessment to $4.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a one-act, one-crime violation requiring vacating one conviction? | Millsap’s brothers’ acts formed one act for two offenses. | N/A | Yes; the more serious conviction determined by Samantha V.; remand to vacate the less serious conviction. |
| CAC assessment exceeding statutory maximum; is it reducible? | CAC fee should be capped at $30. | N/A | Remand to determine the less serious offense and vacate the excess CAC assessment. |
| VCVA assessment should be reduced to $4? | CAC and State Police fee are fines; VCVA should reflect that. | N/A | Yes; modify VCVA to $4 after accounting for other fines. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Harvey, 211 Ill. 2d 368 (2004) (plain-error for one-act, one-crime rule affects integrity of proceedings)
- Samantha V., 234 Ill. 2d 359 (2009) (determine most serious offense when punishments are identical; remand for lesser offense)
- People v. Miller, 238 Ill. 2d 161 (2010) (one-act, one-crime analysis; strict same-act basis)
- People v. Segara, 126 Ill. 2d 70 (1988) (when same act supports multiple offenses, sentence on most serious)
- People v. Donaldson, 91 Ill. 2d 164 (1982) (premised on same act; choose most serious offense)
- In re Samantha V., 234 Ill. 2d 359 (2009) (see Samantha V.; guidance on seriousness analysis)
- People v. Jones, 397 Ill. App. 3d 651 (2009) (CAC fee characterized as a fine for purposes of §10(b))
- People v. Thompson, 209 Ill. 2d 19 (2004) (voidness of nonconforming sentence; may be attacked at any time)
- People v. Elcock, 396 Ill. App. 3d 524 (2009) (de novo review of statutory fines/fees)