People v. Wade
2016 IL App (3d) 150417
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Defendant Donald Jerome Wade pled guilty to retail theft and was sentenced to 5½ years’ imprisonment; trial court awarded presentence custody credit for eight days.
- The trial court ordered a judgment for costs but did not orally impose any fines.
- The record contains a circuit clerk–prepared “History Payments” sheet listing $921.50 in assessments identified only by four‑letter codes; the clerk marked no balance owing.
- Defendant challenged on appeal that the circuit clerk had improperly imposed certain fines, and asked for presentence credit ($5/day × 8 days = $40) to be applied to fines.
- The appellate majority vacated the fines and remanded for the trial court to enter a written, itemized order identifying statutory authority for each fine/fee and to apply the $40 credit against fines.
- Justice Schmidt concurred in vacating clerk‑imposed fines but dissented from remanding for reimposition, citing People v. Castleberry and arguing that remand would improperly increase an illegally low sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether fines listed on the payments sheet were improperly imposed by the circuit clerk | The State implicitly defends the clerk’s assessments as valid or at least not void | Clerk imposed fines (judicial acts) without authority; fines are void and may be challenged on appeal | Several assessments on the payments sheet were fines imposed by the clerk and are void; those fines were vacated and cause remanded for proper entry |
| Whether appellate court may remand to reimpose vacated fines after Castleberry | The State argues Castleberry bars relief that increases sentence on appeal (advanced in related cases) | Wade seeks remand to have court properly enter fines and to apply presentence credit | Majority: Castleberry does not bar remand here because clerk (nonjudicial officer) lacks authority; remand for trial court to enter items is appropriate. Dissent: remand would increase sentence in violation of Castleberry; State should seek mandamus |
| Whether the $5/day presentence credit may be applied to fines and raised on appeal | State did not oppose application below | Wade asks that $40 credit be applied against fines | Credit is a nonforfeitable claim that may be raised on appeal; court directed credit be offset against fines when trial court reenters fines (if any remain) |
| Whether unidentified assessment codes are void fines or permissible fees | State contends items on payments sheet are valid assessments | Wade contends some codes represent fines voidly imposed by clerk | Where coding/key established an assessment as a fine, it was vacated; codes not shown in the record were presumed valid fees and not vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Jimerson, 404 Ill. App. 3d 621 (App. Ct. 2010) (courts may take judicial notice of public records)
- People v. Woodard, 175 Ill. 2d 435 (Ill. 1997) (presentence incarceration credit is nonforfeitable and may be raised on appeal)
- People v. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916 (Ill. 2015) (abolished the void‑sentence rule; appellate court may not increase a sentence on direct appeal)
- People v. Graves, 235 Ill. 2d 244 (Ill. 2009) (fines are part of a criminal sentence)
- People v. Carter, 2015 IL 117709 (Ill. 2015) (appellant bears burden to present an adequate record to show claimed error)
- People v. Unander, 404 Ill. App. 3d 884 (App. Ct. 2010) (certain docketed assessments characterized as fines)