People v. Smith
18 N.E.3d 912
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2014Background
- Darrell W. Smith was convicted by a jury of two counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault (one merged), attempt (aggravated criminal sexual assault), and home invasion; total sentence effectively 60 years with 279 days' credit.
- At sentencing the court orally ordered various obligations (genetic testing, medical testing) and the written order listed a general "pay costs of prosecution" but did not itemize most fines; the circuit clerk's docket/printouts showed detailed per-count assessments.
- Smith filed a pro se postconviction petition; the trial court summarily dismissed it and ordered payment of fees and costs; Smith appealed the dismissal only as to fines/assessments.
- The core dispute: many monetary assessments were imposed by the circuit clerk (often duplicated across counts) rather than by the trial court; Smith challenged multiplicative assessments, improper clerk-imposed fines, statutory calculation errors, and eligibility for $5/day credit against fines.
- The appellate court reviewed de novo, parsed each assessment statute-by-statute to determine (1) whether an item is a fee or a fine, (2) whether it can be imposed per count or per case, and (3) whether the clerk or the trial court must impose it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Smith) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clerk-imposed duplicate per-count fees/fines must be vacated | Many assessments were properly imposed and any vacatur should be limited; some additional statutory fines should be imposed by the court on remand | Clerk improperly imposed quadruplicate assessments; many are fines the court must impose; duplicates should be vacated | Clerk-imposed duplicate assessments vacated as unlawful; court must reimpose required statutory fines as directed |
| Whether particular listed items are fees or fines (and per-count or per-case) | Several items are fees and may be assessed; some fines not yet imposed should be added (e.g., criminal surcharge, sexual-assault fine, sex-offender fine) | Items labeled as fees were actually fines and cannot be imposed by clerk; multiplicative imposition improper | Court parsed statutes: some items are fees (automation, circuit-clerk, court-security, document-storage, State's Attorney fees) and mostly limited to one per case or per conviction as statute allows; others are fines (arrestee medical, court-finance, drug-court, juvenile-expungement, Victims Assistance Act) that the court must impose |
| Whether juvenile-expungement assessment retroactively violates ex post facto | State urged assessment applies | Smith argued assessment became effective after offense date, so ex post facto violation | Juvenile-expungement fine vacated because statute became effective after the offense date and would violate ex post facto |
| Whether Smith is eligible for $5/day credit against fines for pretrial incarceration | State argued credit barred because sexual-assault convictions are excluded | Smith argued he should receive credit | Court held Smith is not eligible for the $5/day credit because sexual-assault convictions are excluded by statute |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Alghadi, 960 N.E.2d 612 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011) (discusses per-count clerk assessments and duplicative fees)
- People v. Larue, 10 N.E.3d 959 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014) (analyzes which clerk fees may be imposed once per case versus per conviction)
- People v. Jones, 861 N.E.2d 967 (Ill. 2006) (distinguishes fees from fines and sets framework for characterization)
- People v. Graves, 919 N.E.2d 906 (Ill. 2009) (explains when statutory "fees" are actually punitive fines)
- People v. Smith, 1 N.E.3d 648 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013) (Second Dist.) (holds court-finance assessment is a fine)
- People v. Ackerman, 10 N.E.3d 470 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014) (Third Dist.) (agrees court-finance assessment is a fine)
- People v. Williams, 991 N.E.2d 914 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013) (discusses order of calculating criminal surcharge before Victims Assistance Act assessment)