People v. Pohl
2012 IL App (2d) 100629
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2012Background
- Defendant Alfred A. Pohl was convicted at a jury trial of three counts of domestic battery arising from battering his girlfriend and two of her daughters.
- Sentence imposed included multiple fines and fees for each conviction, notably drug court/mental health fines, domestic violence fines, court automation fees, document storage fees, clerk’s fees, and court security fees.
- Defendant appealed claiming excessive/incorrect fines and fees and lack of presentencing credit.
- State concedes defendant is entitled to presentencing credit, that two days of presentencing custody offset one $10 drug court/mental health court fine, and that two clerks’ fees and two court security fees should be vacated.
- The appellate court modified the mittimus to grant a $10 presentencing credit toward one fine, reduced each of the three domestic violence fines to $200, and vacated several duplicate fees; affirmed otherwise.
- The decision analyzed presentencing credit, multiple fines/fees per count, and whether fees applied per case or per conviction, concluding in part for reduction/vacatur and in part for continuation of penalties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Presentencing credit against fines. | People argues credit applies to presentencing fine. | Pohl contends credit rules should offset fines per day served. | Credit allowed; two days offset $10 against one fine. |
| Three clerk’s fees permissible. | People says three clerk’s fees allowed. | Pohl argues only one clerk’s fee per case. | Vacate two clerk’s fees; only one clerk’s fee remains. |
| Three court security fees permissible. | People contends three fees allowed. | Pohl argues fee per case, not per conviction. | Vacate two of the three $25 court security fees. |
| Multiple $200 domestic violence fines proper under 5-9-1.5. | People maintains three fines valid. | Pohl argues only one $200 fine per case. | Three $200 fines proper; multiple convictions justify multiple fines. |
| Automation/document storage fees—per case or per conviction. | People argues fees apply per case. | Pohl argues fees apply per conviction. | Vacate two of each fee; only one set per case remains. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Graves, 235 Ill. 2d 244 (2009) (drug court/mental health fine is a fine and credits apply to it)
- People v. Atteberry, 153 Ill. App. 3d 10 (1987) (presentencing credit applied against fines)
- People v. Thompson, 209 Ill. 2d 19 (2004) (void order may be attacked on appeal; credit issues raised timely)
- People v. Woodard, 175 Ill. 2d 435 (1997) (presentencing credit may be raised on appeal)
- Marshall, 242 Ill. 2d 285 (2011) (statutory interpretation; multiple offenses permitted within one indictment)
- Elliott, 272 Ill. 592 (1916) (count-by-count punishment permissible; multiple fines allowed for multiple counts)
- Elcock, 396 Ill. App. 3d 524 (2009) (defer to statutory language in determining fee authority)