People v. Smith
2013 IL App (2d) 120691
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2014Background
- Defendant Raymond C. Smith escaped from a jail ambulance while lodged on separate felony charges; he was convicted at bench trial of escape (Class 2 felony).
- At sentencing the trial court imposed the maximum nonextended term of 7 years, later reduced to 6 years on reconsideration.
- The prosecutor and defense both discussed whether an extended-term sentence was available; the prosecutor said he did not believe defendant was extendible, defense counsel said defendant was not eligible.
- Shortly after sentencing, the judge made remarks suggesting he had considered extended-term sentencing, prompting defendant’s claim that the original 7-year sentence was tainted by a mistaken belief about extendibility.
- The court imposed a $200 DNA analysis fee and other county and state assessments; the State’s records showed defendant’s DNA had already been collected in 2004.
- Defendant was in custody 282 days pre-sentencing and sought $5/day presentencing-credit (totaling $1,410, but capped by the fines) to offset certain fees and charges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant’s sentence must be vacated because the judge mistakenly thought extended-term sentencing was available | The People argued the record does not show the judge relied on a mistaken belief; prosecutor indicated defendant was not extendible and judge’s sentence emphasized proper factors | Smith argued the judge’s later comments show he believed extended-term sentencing was available and that mistake may have influenced the 7-year sentence | Court affirmed sentence: presumption that judge knew the law not rebutted; sentencing hearing and prosecutor’s statement rebut mistake; later ambiguous remarks insufficient to show prejudice |
| Whether the $200 DNA analysis fee must be vacated because defendant’s DNA was already in the database | State conceded error once DSP report showed prior DNA submission | Smith argued fee improperly assessed a second time | Court vacated the $200 DNA fee (fee may be assessed only once under 730 ILCS 5/5-4-3) |
| Whether defendant is entitled to presentencing credit against various assessments (including county §5-1101(c) $50 charge) | People agreed several assessments are fines/fees subject to §110-14(a) credit and should be offset | Smith argued he is entitled to $5/day credit (282 days) applied to listed fees; also argued county §5-1101(c) charge is a fine | Court held defendant entitled to $5/day credit applied to specified charges (total $112 credited) and held the §5-1101(c) county $50 assessment is a fine subject to credit; judgment modified accordingly |
Key Cases Cited
- Gaultney v. People, 174 Ill. 2d 410 (presumption that trial judge knows and follows law)
- Myrieckes v. People, 315 Ill. App. 3d 478 (plain-error review where judge misstated extended-term eligibility at sentencing)
- Marshall v. People, 242 Ill. 2d 285 (DNA fee may be assessed only once)
- Jones v. People, 223 Ill. 2d 569 (statutory label does not control; charges imposed after conviction that are punitive are fines)
- Graves v. People, 235 Ill. 2d 244 (county court-system "fees" under §5-1101 are fines when punitive and not compensatory)