People v. Rios-Salazar
2017 Ill. App. LEXIS 709
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Defendant Aaron Rios-Salazar pled guilty to one count of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child for an offense in 2010 and was sentenced to 24 years’ imprisonment; several other counts were nol-prossed.
- The court’s cost sheet (file-stamped July 24, 2015) assessed $1,587 in monetary assessments, including a $100 Violent Crime Victims Assistance (VCVA) assessment and a $25 judicial facilities ("house fee") assessment.
- Defendant argued the VCVA assessment and the $25 judicial facilities fee were improper because they retroactively increased punishment (ex post facto), and that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to $57 in improper charges (which he calculated as the difference between what should have been charged and what was imposed).
- The defendant raised the challenge on appeal as an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim (conceding forfeiture of direct review of the fees).
- The majority declined to decide whether the assessments were fines or fees, and held counsel’s failure to object to the relatively small ($57) discrepancy did not constitute constitutionally deficient performance; the judgment was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to $100 VCVA assessment and $25 judicial facilities fee | Counsel’s performance was adequate; failure to object to de minimis monetary items did not render assistance constitutionally deficient | Counsel was ineffective for failing to object to assessments that violated ex post facto protections, costing defendant $57 | Counsel’s failure to object to the $57 in alleged improper assessments was not constitutionally deficient; conviction and sentence affirmed |
| Whether the court should correct potentially improper retroactive fines despite forfeiture | Forfeiture not excused; proceed under ineffective-assistance claim only | The fines violated ex post facto principles and should be corrected (reduce VCVA to $68; vacate $25 fee) | Majority: did not reach merits of ex post facto claim; deemed amounts de minimis for Strickland purposes |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- People v. Smith, 195 Ill. 2d 179 (definition of constitutionally deficient performance)
- People v. Easley, 192 Ill. 2d 307 (ineffective assistance requires competent, not perfect, representation)
- Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (no Sixth Amendment right to counsel in cases punishable only by fine)
- Hadley v. Montes, 379 Ill. App. 3d 405 (elements of ex post facto violation)
- People v. Dalton, 406 Ill. App. 3d 158 (fines fall within ex post facto prohibition)
- People v. Coleman, 111 Ill. 2d 87 (ex post facto and fairness principles)
- People v. Lewis, 234 Ill. 2d 32 (small monetary errors can still affect fairness of proceedings)