People v. Somers
970 N.E.2d 606
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Defendant Brandon Somers pleaded guilty in 09-CF-63 to unlawful possession with intent to deliver cannabis and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia; sentenced to TASC probation in March 2010 with $200 public defender fee.
- Somers pleaded guilty in 10-CF-231 to unlawful possession of a controlled substance; public defender appointed; sentencing order included $200 fee.
- Probation in 09-CF-63 was revoked in December 2010; Somers was resentenced to two years six months in prison on both 09-CF-63 and 10-CF-231, with financial obligations remaining except probation fees vacated.
- In December 2010, Somers filed motions to reconsider; the court denied them; consolidated appeals followed.
- On appeal, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded with directions; issues centered on sentence reasonableness and reimbursement of public defender fees.
- For 10-CF-231, reimbursement for the public defender was vacated due to failure to hold a Love hearing; for 09-CF-63, the reimbursement issue was deemed not subject to appellate review due to lack of timely appeal and Jolliff reasoning.
- The State agreed to vacate the 10-CF-231 reimbursement order, and the case was remanded for a proper hearing on ability to pay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentences were excessive given the facts. | Somers argues sentences were excessive. | Somers contends mitigating factors warranted lesser punishment. | Within sentencing ranges; no abuse of discretion. |
| Whether the public defender reimbursement orders must be vacated. | State argues some orders may stand. | Somers contends improper procedures violated 113-3.1. | Vacate reimbursement order in 10-CF-231; jurisdiction bars review in 09-CF-63. |
| Whether proper 113-3.1 hearings were held before reimbursement orders. | State asserts proper hearing required under Love. | Somers claims failure to conduct Love hearing invalidates orders. | Vacate in 10-CF-231; remand for hearing on ability to pay. |
| Whether remand is appropriate in light of Gutierrez and related cases. | Remand for hearing per Gutierrez. | Remand unnecessary if outright vacatur possible. | Remand for proper Love/113-3.1 hearing in 10-CF-231; 09-CF-63 review limited by Jolliff. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Love, 177 Ill. 2d 550 (1997) (Love hearing required before imposing fees; financial-ability inquiry mandated)
- People v. Barbosa, 365 Ill. App. 3d 297 (2006) (notice and opportunity to present evidence before reimbursement order)
- People v. Jolliff, 183 Ill. App. 3d 962 (1989) (timeliness and review limits on reimbursement orders; Love-like requirements apply)
- People v. Gutierrez, 2012 IL 111590 (2012) (fundamental shift on 90-day requirement and remand authority for hearing when 113-3.1 not followed)
- People v. Fitzpatrick, 2011 IL App (2d) 100463 (2011) (remand for a hearing despite elapsed 90-day period per Gutierrez; Love framework discussed)
- People v. Bailey, 409 Ill. App. 3d 574 (2011) (trial court presumed to consider relevant mitigation evidence)