People v. Somers, 2013 IL 114054

Defendant Michael Somers was charged with five counts of burglary and entered a negotiated plea for two years’ probation and 180 days in jail.
The Livingston County circuit court imposed the public defender fee of $200 as reimbursement for appointed counsel.
The trial court asked Somers about employment and future income before imposing the fee, and Somers answered affirmatively.
Subsequently, the State filed three probation-violation petitions; Somers was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment, with financial obligations left in effect.
Somers appealed, arguing the public defender fee hearing violated 725 ILCS 5/113-3.1(a) due to an inadequate hearing.
The appellate court remanded for a proper hearing after finding the trial court’s questions insufficient under section 113-3.1(a).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether remand for a new hearing was proper when the final judgment was entered more than 90 days earlier.	Somers argues the 90-day limit is mandatory and precludes remand.	People contends the timing issue is not fatal; the hearing itself was defective and remand is appropriate.	Remand for a proper hearing is proper; timing is not a bar given the defective hearing within the period.
Whether the 90-day period is mandatory or directory under section 113-3.1(a).	Somers maintains the period is mandatory.	People suggests the issue is not dispositive on remand.	Court did not decide the mandatory-vs-directory nature on these facts; issue not reached.

People v. Roberson, 335 Ill. App. 3d 798 (2002) (two questions about employment insufficient to satisfy 113-3.1(a))
People v. Gutierrez, 2012 IL 111590 (2012) (remand permissible when hearing within 90 days but defective, similar to Gutierrez reasoning)
Love v. Illinois, 177 Ill. 2d 550 (1997) (hearing must focus on defendant’s financial status and ability to pay)
Hanna, 296 Ill. App. 3d 116 (1998) (trial court must consider defendant’s financial affidavit)