People v. Mullen
100 N.E.3d 532
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- Defendant David Mullen was convicted of robbery after a bench trial; sentence: 7 years (Class X). He does not challenge guilt.
- He was represented by the public defender; the State filed a motion seeking reimbursement for public-defender costs and the trial court assessed a $500 public-defender fee at sentencing after a brief exchange.
- The clerk’s preprinted “Order Assessing Fines, Fees and Costs” listed various assessments and noted 263 days of pretrial custody but did not calculate the $5/day presentence credit.
- The form labeled many assessments as “fees not offset” though some are legally fines subject to the $5/day presentence incarceration credit under 725 ILCS 5/110‑14(a).
- On appeal Mullen argued (1) the $500 fee should be vacated because no statutorily adequate section 113‑3.1 hearing occurred, and (2) his fines/fees order misclassified items and failed to apply presentence credit; the State agreed a hearing was deficient but sought remand for a compliant hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Mullen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the $500 public-defender reimbursement may be imposed without a section 113‑3.1 hearing | A deficient but existing hearing occurred within 90 days; remand for a proper hearing is appropriate | No proper hearing occurred; because 90 days have passed the fee must be vacated | Remanded: the court held the brief questioning constituted “some sort of hearing” under Somers/Hardman, so remand for a statutorily compliant hearing is required |
| Whether the clerk’s fines/fees order correctly labeled assessments as fees (not eligible for $5/day credit) | Agreed some items were mischaracterized but argued forfeiture on others | Argued multiple items labeled as fees are fines and thus eligible for presentence credit; also sought calculation of credit for 263 days | Court reviewed despite no trial objection (plain-error and Caballero) and directed reclassification for certain items and application of credit |
| Whether presentence incarceration credit ($5/day for 263 days) was applied and calculated | Acknowledged some mislabeling; did not assert forfeiture here | Sought full offset against fines for 263 days ($5/day) | Court held credit claims reviewable; directed clerk to apply $115 offset (total fines subject to offset) and modify order so net owed is $354 |
| Whether specific assessments (records automation, arrestee medical, probation operations) are fees or fines | Conceded $15 state police and $50 court systems are fines; argued others are fees | Challenged several remaining assessments as fines (records automation, arrestee medical, probation operations) | Court held: $2 records automation assessments = fees (not offset); $10 arrestee medical assessment not offset per statute; $10 probation/court services = fee (not offset). $15 state police and $50 court systems are fines and subject to credit |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Love, 177 Ill.2d 550 (1997) (forfeiture rule inapplicable where statutory procedures for public-defender reimbursement were ignored)
- People v. Somers, 2013 IL 114054 (2013) (a deficient but timely hearing can qualify as "some sort of hearing" and support remand for a full statutory hearing)
- People v. Hardman, 2017 IL 121453 (2017) (trial court’s brief questioning about appearances constituted “some sort of hearing” under Somers)
- People v. Caballero, 228 Ill.2d 79 (2008) (section 110‑14 presentence-credit claims may be raised at any time if clear from the record)
- People v. Lewis, 234 Ill.2d 32 (2009) (plain-error review applies broadly; no de minimis exception)