People v. Warren
2017 IL App (3d) 150085
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- Defendant Darron Warren was convicted of possession with intent to deliver cannabis and sentenced January 27, 2015 to 4 years imprisonment; the court said costs were "reduced to judgment" because defendant lacked ability to pay and did not set a pay date.
- Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal listing the January 27, 2015 judgment as the appealed order.
- After the notice of appeal, the circuit clerk prepared and entered monetary data sheets (filed March 27, 2015) showing a $729.01 judgment, which included $115 in assessments the parties agree were improper fines.
- No payments have been made and no collection efforts or supplementary court order compelling payment have been undertaken.
- Defendant asked the appellate court to vacate the $115 of clerk-entered fines; the State argued the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to reach clerk entries added after the notice of appeal and that the dispute was not ripe.
- The majority dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction (no justiciable controversy / notice-of-appeal problem); Justice McDade dissented, arguing the court had jurisdiction under the voidness doctrine and would vacate the clerk-imposed fines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate court has jurisdiction to review clerk-entered monetary entries added after the notice of appeal | The entries were not part of the judgment identified in the notice of appeal and any harm is speculative; therefore the appeal is not ripe and court lacks jurisdiction | The clerk-imposed fines are void; Gutierrez allows appellate review of clerk-imposed assessments even if not in a court order; the notice of appeal should be construed liberally to encompass the sentence | Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction: no justiciable controversy and notice did not fairly encompass clerk entries |
| Whether clerk-entered fines are void such that they may be vacated at any time | State suggested jurisdictional limits should prevent review here | Warren: clerk lacks authority to impose fines; such fines are void and reviewable now | Majority did not reach merits; dissent would treat clerk-imposed fines as void and vacate them |
| Whether timing of clerk action (after notice) precludes appellate review | Later clerk action falls outside the judgment specified in the notice of appeal | Timing should not shield an illegal clerk act; the notice of appeal brought the sentencing and its monetary components before the court | Majority: timing and ripeness bar review; dissent: timing irrelevant under voidness and precedent |
| Whether the clerk’s printout constituted a judicial order | State implicit: entries are recordkeeping, not judicial orders | Defendant: entries functionally altered sentence and should be treated as imposing fines | Majority: clerk printout is not a court order and does not direct action; decline to review now |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Smith, 228 Ill. 2d 95 (Illinois 2008) (notice-of-appeal must fairly and adequately identify the judgment complained of)
- Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 (U.S. 1937) (defining justiciable controversy requirement)
- La Salle Nat’l Bank v. City of Chicago, 3 Ill. 2d 375 (Ill. 1954) (actual controversy prerequisite to appellate jurisdiction)
- People v. Gutierrez, 2012 IL 111590 (Ill. 2012) (appellate court may vacate assessments imposed by circuit clerk without court authority)
- People v. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916 (Ill. 2015) (narrowed scope of void-judgment doctrine)
- People v. Price, 2016 IL 118613 (Ill. 2016) (Castleberry’s effect limited the universe of void orders)
- People v. Flowers, 208 Ill. 2d 291 (Ill. 2003) (void orders may be attacked but relief depends on court having proper jurisdiction)