People v. Smith
2014 IL App (4th) 121118
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Defendant Darrell W. Smith was convicted after a March 2010 jury trial of two counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault, an attempt (aggravated criminal sexual assault), and home invasion.
- Counts I and II merged on sentencing; I/III/IV were sentenced to 30, 15, and 30 years respectively, with the III term consecutive to I and IV consecutive to I but concurrent with III.
- Trial court imposed various fines and fees in addition to sentencing, including post-judgment assessments for automation, circuit-clerk, court-security, document-storage, State’s Attorney, drug-court, and Victims Assistance Act, some of which were per-count; defendant received 279 days credit for time served.
- Defendant’s direct appeal affirmed the convictions and sentence; he later filed a pro se postconviction petition which was summarily dismissed; on appeal, the court addressed whether the clerk’s imposition of fines/fees and per-count assessments were proper and remanded.
- The appellate court concluded many per-count assessments were improper and vacated them; it remanded to determine which fees/fines could be lawfully imposed and to recalculate several fines, while also barring the $5 per diem sentencing credit due to the offense definition of sexual assault.
- The court ultimately affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded with directions to have the trial court correctly impose mandatory fines and recalculate related penalties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are per-count assessments valid or must they be limited to a single per case assessment? | People (the State) contends some fees may be imposed per count. | Smith argues per-count impositions are improper. | Vacate duplicate per-count assessments; impose per case where required. |
| Are circuit-clerk-imposed fines properly authorized, and how should they be recalculated/remanded? | State concedes clerks improperly imposed several fines but seeks reimposition. | Clerk-imposed fines are improper and must be corrected on remand. | Vacate improper clerk-imposed fines; remand to impose correct per-count fines and recalculate totals. |
| Must additional fines (criminal surcharge, sex-offender, sexual-assault fines) be imposed on remand? | State asks for several mandatory additional fines. | Not all such fines may apply given record; need proper imposition. | Impose three $10 criminal-surcharge fines, two $200 sexual-assault fines, and two $500 sex-offender fines on remand. |
| Are late and collection fees proper or enforceable when not reflecting judicial imposition? | State argues these are civil penalties properly collectable. | Clerk’s late/collection fees improper as not judicially imposed. | Vacate collection and late fees; assess anew only for properly imposed amounts. |
| Is the $5 per diem sentencing credit available where sexual-assault offenses were involved? | State asserts credit applies; defendant is incarcerated for sexual assault. | Credit should not apply to sexual-assault offenses. | Not eligible for the $5 per diem credit; modify judgment to remove the credit. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Montag, 2014 IL App (4th) 120993 (2014) (clerks cannot impose fines; court must impose.)
- People v. Larue, 2014 IL App (4th) 120595 (2014) (per-count fees generally limited to one per case.)
- People v. Warren, 2014 IL App (4th) 120721 (2014) (fines vs. fees; posture on multiple counts and per-case imposition.)
- People v. Smith, 2013 IL App (2d) 120691 (2013) (court-finance assessment treated as fine; per Graves/Smith analysis.)
- Graves v. Illinois, 235 Ill. 2d 244 (2009) (fines vs. fees; Graves framework for penalties under 5-1101.)
- Williams, 2013 IL App (4th) 120313 (2013) (lump-sum surcharge timing with Victims Assistance Act.)