People v. Wade
2016 IL App (3d) 150417
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Defendant Donald J. Wade pled guilty to retail theft and was sentenced to 5½ years’ imprisonment; the trial court ordered a judgment for costs but imposed no fines at sentencing.
- A circuit clerk’s payments sheet (dated erroneously) listed total assessments of $921.50 with itemized codes and amounts; a deputy clerk certified the sheet.
- On initial appeal this court remanded for postplea proceedings; on remand Wade moved to withdraw his plea and to reconsider sentence; postplea relief was denied.
- Wade challenged on appeal that certain assessments on the payments sheet were fines improperly imposed by the circuit clerk (who lacks authority to impose fines).
- The parties agreed some assessed items were fines imposed by the clerk and therefore void; the remaining items appeared to be clerk-levied fees or were unclear from the record.
- The court vacated the fines imposed by the clerk but declined to remand for the trial court to reimpose mandatory fines, citing appellate limits on increasing sentences on direct appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether certain assessments on the clerk’s payments sheet are fines improperly imposed by the circuit clerk | Clerk’s assessed charges are valid costs/assessments | Clerk imposed fines without judicial authority; those fines are void | Several listed assessments constitute fines and are void because imposed by the clerk rather than the trial court |
| Whether the appellate court may remand for the trial court to impose the mandatory fines that were not entered at sentencing | State originally sought remand; later conceded no remand | Wade requested remand to have fines properly imposed | Court vacated clerk-imposed fines but declined to remand for reimposition, because appellate court may not increase a sentence on direct appeal |
| Whether Castleberry’s abolition of the void-sentence rule requires reimposition of fines | State argued corrective relief may be sought | Wade argued remand appropriate to correct missing mandatory fines | Castleberry does not permit appellate increase of sentence; remand for reimposition would unlawfully increase sentence; State must seek mandamus if it wants fines imposed |
| Whether Wade’s presentence credit should apply to vacated fines | State did not dispute credit application | Wade sought $5/day credit to apply against fines | Moot — fines vacated, nothing remains to credit against |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916 (appellate court may not increase sentence on direct appeal)
- People v. Graves, 235 Ill. 2d 244 (distinguishing fines from fees; fines are part of sentence)
- People v. Larue, 2014 IL App (4th) 120595 (fines imposed by clerk are void)
- People v. Hible, 2016 IL App (4th) 131096 (clerk may levy fees but not fines)
- People v. Carter, 2015 IL 117709 (appellant bears burden to present adequate record to show error)
- People v. Unander, 404 Ill. App. 3d 884 (certain assessments characterized as fines)
- People v. Irvine, 379 Ill. App. 3d 116 (criminal surcharge is a fine)
- People v. Millsap, 2012 IL App (4th) 110668 (identifying statutory assessments as fines)