People v. Ramones
2016 IL App (3d) 140877
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Defendant Matthew Ramones pleaded guilty to aggravated domestic battery and was sentenced on November 2, 2010 to four years’ imprisonment; a Criminal Cost Sheet from that date charged a $50 court systems fee and a $200 DNA analysis fee among other assessments.
- Defense did not request the $5-per-day incarceration credit at sentencing or thereafter in the trial court, nor did he timely challenge the amounts listed on the Cost Sheet.
- On August 25, 2014, defendant filed a pro se 2-1401 petition asserting due-process defects in his conviction; he did not challenge monetary assessments in that petition.
- The State moved to dismiss the petition (procedural defects and timeliness); the trial court dismissed the petition for lack of proper service on September 30, 2014; that dismissal is not challenged on appeal.
- On appeal, defendant first requested application of the $5 per diem credit to offset the $50 court systems assessment and, for the first time, challenged the successive $200 DNA analysis fee.
- The State conceded the per diem credit should apply to the $50 court systems assessment but opposed revestment (consideration on the merits) of the forfeited DNA-fee issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant may obtain $5 per day incarceration credit to offset the $50 court systems assessment | State concedes credit applies | Ramones seeks application of statutory $5/day credit to satisfy the $50 assessment | Court orders remand to apply a $50 credit to satisfy the $50 court systems fine; credit may be granted for first time on appeal when not opposed |
| Whether the successive $200 DNA analysis fee should be vacated despite no timely objection in trial court (revestment/forfeiture) | State argues defendant forfeited the challenge and opposes revestment | Ramones argues duplicate DNA fee should be vacated because he previously submitted to DNA analysis | Court holds the successive DNA fee did not render the judgment void; defendant forfeited the claim and, because State opposes revestment, the challenge is denied |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Marshall, 242 Ill. 2d 285 (2011) (established limits on imposing DNA analysis fees and informed later challenges to successive DNA assessments)