People v. Vara
76 N.E.3d 10
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Ricardo Vara was convicted after a bench trial of child pornography and sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment; the trial court expressly imposed certain statutory fines but did not impose others that statutes required.
- Approximately 18 months after final judgment, a deputy circuit clerk signed a Payment Schedule listing multiple mandatory statutory assessments (e.g., county court fee, youth diversion, violent crime fund, lump-sum surcharge, sexual-assault fine, State Police operations, etc.).
- The parties agree the circuit clerk lacked authority to impose fines (a judicial function) and that the clerk-originated assessments are void; they dispute whether an appellate court may now impose or order imposition of those mandatory fines.
- The State asks the appellate court either to impose the omitted fines itself or to remand with directions that the trial court impose them; Vara contends Castleberry prevents appellate correction that increases punishment on the State’s request and asks only that clerk-imposed assessments be vacated.
- The appellate court treats the question as purely legal, recognizes Castleberry’s abrogation of the ‘‘void sentence’’ rule, follows People v. Wade, and holds it may vacate the clerk’s unauthorized assessments but may not impose or order imposition of the mandatory fines on direct appeal.
- Result: the clerk-originated fines are vacated; defendant’s conviction and the fines the trial court actually imposed are affirmed; the State may pursue other remedies (e.g., mandamus) but cannot obtain relief on defendant’s direct appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether circuit clerk’s postjudgment assessments of mandatory statutory fines are valid | Assessments represent mandatory statutory obligations and, if missing from the judgment, the appellate court should impose them or remand for imposition | Clerk lacked authority to impose fines; clerk-originated assessments are void and should be vacated; appellate court may not impose new penalties under Castleberry | Clerk-originated assessments are void and must be vacated |
| Whether an appellate court may, on a defendant-initiated direct appeal, impose or order trial court to impose mandatory fines that the trial court omitted | Appellate court may correct illegally low sentences by imposing or directing imposition of the omitted fines (pre-Castleberry practice) | Castleberry forbids appellate courts from increasing punishment on State’s behalf on direct appeal; only vacatur of void clerk acts is appropriate | Under Castleberry, appellate court may not impose or direct imposition of omitted mandatory fines on defendant’s appeal; State must seek other relief |
| Effect of Castleberry on ‘‘void-sentence’’ doctrine when fines were purportedly levied by a nonjudicial clerk | State contends Castleberry does not prevent vacating clerk-originated void assessments and then remanding for imposition | Defendant contends Castleberry bars appellate courts from awarding State relief that increases punishment; clerk acts are void but appellate correction is not permitted | Castleberry abolished the automatic ‘‘void sentence’’ remedy for nonjurisdictional statutory defects; appellate courts cannot increase sentence for the State on direct appeal |
| Proper remedy available to the State to obtain imposition of mandatory fines omitted by the trial court | The appellate court should remand or directly impose the fines to effectuate statutory policy | The State must seek an alternate proceeding (e.g., mandamus) because direct-appeal relief is unavailable | Vacatur of clerk-originated assessments; State may seek mandamus or other collateral proceedings, but not relief on defendant’s direct appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916 (Illinois Supreme Court) (abolished the rule that nonjurisdictional sentencing defects render a sentence "void" and held appellate courts may not increase a defendant’s sentence on the State’s behalf on direct appeal)
- People v. Arna, 168 Ill. 2d 107 (Illinois Supreme Court) (pre-Castleberry authority treating sentences that violate statutory requirements as void)
- People v. Davis, 156 Ill. 2d 149 (Illinois Supreme Court) (distinguishing jurisdictional defects from nonjurisdictional defects in determining when judgments are void)
- People v. Wisotzke, 204 Ill. App. 3d 44 (Ill. App. Ct.) (explaining that imposition of fines is a judicial function and clerks may not impose fines)
- People v. Marshall, 242 Ill. 2d 285 (Illinois Supreme Court) (de novo review for pure legal issues in appeals)