2017 IL App (4th) 150529
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- In Aug. 2014 Zachary Scott (stipulated sex offender) signed a registration form listing his resident address as “Homeless” and checking “Homeless Weekly,” with next registration due 8/18/14; he did not report that day but did on 8/21/14 and was arrested.
- The State charged Scott with failure to register as a sex offender (Class 2 felony alleged based on prior conviction). Trial occurred Feb. 2015; jury convicted.
- At trial the State introduced the Aug. 11, 2014 registration form and testimony from police employees; Scott introduced his prior registration forms.
- The jury was given pattern instructions stating the elements as: (1) defendant is a sex offender and (2) defendant knowingly failed to register. Defense did not object to those instructions.
- During deliberations jurors asked whether the issue was failing to register or failing to register on the date shown; the court told jurors to refer to the written instructions.
- The circuit court sentenced Scott to eight years; on appeal the court affirmed conviction in part, vacated two fines imposed by the clerk, and granted a $5 per diem credit against a $5 drug court assessment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State had to prove Scott lacked a fixed residence to sustain conviction | The conviction rested on Scott’s acquiescence to weekly reporting; State did not need to prove lack of fixed residence as an element here | Lack of fixed residence is an element and State failed to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt | Lack of fixed residence was not an element under these facts (Scott signed form acknowledging weekly reporting); conviction stands on other elements |
| Whether plain error occurred from jury instructions and court’s answer to juror question | Instructions were proper because weekly-reporting applicability was not at issue; court’s answer was adequate | Instructions omitted element (lack of fixed residence); court failed to properly answer jurors’ legal question | No plain error: no instructional error given the facts; defendant conceded cannot appeal court’s response to jurors |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to secure correct instructions | Counsel’s conduct not deficient because lack of fixed residence was not an element here | Counsel was ineffective for not ensuring instructions included fixed-residence element | No ineffective assistance: defendant failed Strickland because the underlying element was not required here |
| Whether clerk-imposed assessments/fines and per-diem credit were proper | State: some assessments valid; concedes per-diem credit applies | Clerk improperly imposed $50 court finance and $10 arrestee medical fines; deserves $5 per diem credit against $5 drug court assessment | $50 court finance and $10 arrestee medical assessments vacated as void (clerk lacked authority to impose fines); $5 credit awarded against $5 drug court assessment |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
- People v. Evans, 186 Ill. 2d 83 (Illinois adoption of Strickland framework)
- People v. Sargent, 239 Ill. 2d 166 (plain-error framework and when to decline further plain-error analysis)
- People v. Wlecke, 6 N.E.3d 745 (Ill. App. 2014) (discusses proving lack of fixed residence for weekly-reporting offense)
- People v. Sulton, 395 Ill. App. 3d 186 (per-diem credit application to fines)
- People v. Woodard, 175 Ill. 2d 435 (forfeiture rules do not bar claim for per-diem credit)