People v. Montag
2014 IL App (4th) 120993
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2014Background
- Defendant Kent Montag was sentenced in three Woodford County cases: 09-CF-46 to 2 years, 11-CF-12 to 4 years, and 11-CF-45 to 5 years, with 11-CF-12 concurrent to 09-CF-46 and 11-CF-45 consecutive to 11-CF-12.
- In 2010-2011, the trial court imposed a $200 public defender fee during a probation-revocation context, later dismissed the related petition to revoke.
- In July 2011, defendant filed notices of appeal and the court remanded to ensure compliance with Rule 605/Supreme Court guidance.
- On September 4, 2012, counsel filed a Rule 604(d) certificate in all three cases; on October 16, 2012, an amended motion to reconsider was filed.
- The trial court denied the motions, and Montag appealed challenging Rule 604(d) compliance, the public defender fee, per diem credits, and fines assessed by the circuit clerk.
- We review and remand with directions to correct fines, compute statutory credits, and adjust sentencing judgments as needed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 604(d) certificate timing complied. | Montag argues certificate filed before amended motion fails strict compliance. | Montag contends timing undermines Rule 604(d)’s purpose. | No reversible error; timing nonprejudicial to defense. |
| Whether public defender fee was improper without a hearing. | State argues issue not properly appealed. | Fee imposed without hearing on ability to pay. | Vacate reimbursement order and remand for 113-3.1 hearing. |
| Whether statutory per diem credits shouldReduce fines. | Montag seeks $5 per diem credit against creditable fines. | State concedes entitlement to statutory credits. | Entitled to statutory credits; conduct of fines to be corrected on remand. |
| Whether clerk-imposed fines and sentence sequencing were proper. | Fines allegedly imposed by circuit clerk and judgments misstate sequence. | Vacate clerk-imposed fines; remand to reimpose mandatory fines and correct sequencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Petty, 366 Ill. App. 3d 1170 (2006) (Rule 604(d) certificate purpose and review standard)
- People v. Shirley, 181 Ill. 2d 359 (1998) (Rule 604(d) timing and necessity of consultive certificate)
- People v. Marquez, 2012 IL App (2d) 110475 (2012) (second certificate requirement when amended motion follows pre-sentencing filing)
- People v. Love, 385 Ill. App. 3d 736 (2008) (statutory 113-3.1 hearing requirement for reimbursement orders)
- People v. Cozad, 158 Ill. App. 3d 664 (1987) (consideration of financial circumstances in 113-3.1 context)
- People v. Williams, 2013 IL App (4th) 120313 (2013) (guidance on proper imposition of statutory fines and fees)
- People v. O’Laughlin, 2012 IL App (4th) 110018 (2012) (complexity of fines and clerks’ role in imposition)
- People v. Folks, 406 Ill. App. 3d 300 (2010) (remedies for improper imposition of fines and costs)
- People v. Jackson, 2011 IL 110615 (2011) (mandatory fines and assessments in criminal convictions)
- People v. Millsap, 2012 IL App (4th) 110668 (2012) (State Police fee and related fines analysis)