People v. O'Laughlin
2012 IL App (4th) 110018
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2012Background
- Defendant Robert E.D. O’Laughlin was convicted by jury in 2010 of aggravated driving under the influence, driving while license revoked or suspended, and aggravated fleeing or eluding a police officer.
- Sentencing in November 2010 imposed concurrent prison terms and various court costs and fines, including a $1,000 DUI Equipment/Alcohol Enforcement Fund fee and a $5 Spinal Cord Research Fund, with time served credited.
- Sometime after sentencing, the circuit clerk added numerous fines and fees not fully reflected in the court record, totaling approximately $1,915, some of which lacked statutory authority.
- The defendant challenged the circuit clerk’s authority to impose several fines; the State conceded improper fines but urged remand for the trial court to impose mandatory fines.
- The parties and this court sought clarification on statutory authority, applicability, and computation of several fines (notably Driver’s Education Fund and Lump Sum Surcharge) to be imposed on remand.
- The court ultimately affirmed convictions, vacated improper fines, and remanded for recalculation and imposition of appropriate mandatory fines, along with $780 presentence custody credit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the circuit clerk’s impositions of certain fines proper? | State concedes some fines were improper and should be vacated; mandatory fines should be imposed on remand. | O’Laughlin argues the circuit clerk erred by imposing various fines; only those authorized and mandatory should stand on remand. | Yes; improper fines vacated; remand for trial court to impose appropriate mandatory fines. |
| How should the Driver’s Education Fund and Lump Sum Surcharge be calculated when multiple fines are imposed? | State asserts per-fine calculation based on each fine; use algorithm multiplying per $40 increment per fine. | O’Laughlin contends calculation should be on the gross sum of all fines, not per individual fine. | Calculate on the gross amount of applicable fines (total fines), then apply VCVA fine. |
| Should two additional fines (Juvenile Records Expungement and Roadside Memorial) be imposed? | State asserts mandatory applicability of these fines; not previously addressed by the record. | No position provided; remand necessary to determine applicability. | Remand to determine mandatory applicability of these two fines. |
| Should the court impose the Driver’s Education Fund and Lump Sum Surcharge on remand along with other mandatory fines? | Not specifically asserted here beyond the method of calculation; agrees as part of remand. | No contrary argument beyond calculation method. | On remand, impose the Driver’s Education Fund and Lump Sum Surcharge using gross-fines method; then compute VCVA. |
| What presentence custody credit is due, and how should it affect fines? | Defendant entitled to custody credit; credit should reduce eligible fines. | N/A beyond requesting credit. | defendant entitled to $780 in presentence custody credit against eligible fines. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Curtis, 407 Ill. App. 3d 1042 (2011) (affirmed computation of lump-sum surcharge on total fines)
- People v. Shaw, 386 Ill. App. 3d 704 (2008) (remand for imposition of mandatory fines; guidance on fines)
- People v. Perry, 224 Ill. 2d 312 (2007) (statutory interpretation approach for penalties)
- Maxwell, 2011 IL App (4th) 100434 (2011) (addressed timeliness and authority of fines imposed post-offense)