People v. Vara
2016 IL App (2d) 140848
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Ricardo Vara was convicted after a bench trial of child pornography and sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment; the trial court imposed certain fines but did not impose several other mandatory statutory assessments.
- Approximately 18 months after final judgment, the circuit clerk (not the trial court) signed a Payment Status Information sheet listing multiple additional mandatory assessments/fines as unpaid.
- Defendant conceded the clerk had no authority to impose fines and asked the appellate court to vacate the clerk-imposed assessments; the State conceded the assessments were void but asked the court to either impose the fines itself or remand with directions for the trial court to impose them.
- The central legal question: whether the appellate court, on defendant’s direct appeal, may (a) vacate the clerk’s unauthorized fines (undisputed), and (b) impose or order the trial court to impose the mandatory fines that the trial court itself never entered.
- The parties and the court agreed the clerk lacked authority to impose fines (a judicial function); the dispute focused on available remedies in light of People v. Castleberry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Vara) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether clerk-imposed statutory fines are void | Clerk-imposed fines are void and should be vacated; appellate court may then impose or remand for trial court to impose mandatory fines | Clerk-imposed fines are void and should be vacated; but appellate court may not impose or order imposition of additional fines on direct appeal | Vacated clerk-imposed fines; appellate court lacks authority on this direct appeal to impose or order trial court to impose the fines |
| Whether appellate court can increase defendant’s sentence on State’s request in direct appeal after Castleberry | Appellate courts historically could impose or order imposition of mandatory fines the trial court failed to assess | After Castleberry, increasing punishment on defendant in his direct appeal is foreclosed; State must pursue mandamus or a separate proceeding | Court follows Castleberry: appellate court may not grant State relief that would increase punishment on defendant in his appeal |
| Whether the defendant forfeited the challenge to the clerk’s assessments by not raising it below | Forfeiture not argued by State | Defendant contends claim is preserved; clerk conduct is plain error/cognizable | Court: no forfeiture; plain-error/nonforfeited review applies |
| Appropriate remedy for State to enforce statutory fines not imposed by trial court | Appellate remedy (impose/remand) or direct relief on appeal | State must use mandamus or other collateral/new proceeding; appellate court cannot effectuate on direct appeal | State must pursue mandamus or other separate action; appellate court vacated clerk assessments and left trial-court sentence as is |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916 (Ill.) (abolished rule that statutory sentencing defects automatically render sentence void and held appellate court on defendant’s direct appeal may not grant State relief that increases defendant’s punishment)
- People v. Arna, 168 Ill. 2d 107 (Ill. 1995) (previously treated statutory sentencing defects as void)
- People v. Davis, 156 Ill. 2d 149 (Ill. 1993) (discussion of void vs. voidable judgments and jurisdictional limits)
- People v. Flowers, 208 Ill. 2d 291 (Ill.) (principles regarding appellate authority over sentencing issues)