People v. Warren, 2017 IL App (3d) 150085

Darron L. Warren was convicted of unlawful possession of cannabis with intent to deliver and sentenced on January 27, 2015; the court orally stated the defendant lacked the ability to pay and ordered only costs.
Defendant filed a notice of appeal on January 27, 2015, identifying the January 27 judgment/order as the subject of the appeal.
Subsequent to the notice of appeal, the circuit clerk prepared and entered monetary data (a “Record of Judgment” and a “Payment Status Information” printout) showing a total judgment of $729.01 on February 6 and March 27, 2015, respectively; $115 of that total consisted of fines the parties agree were improper.
No judicial supplemental order compelling payment was signed; no collection efforts have been undertaken and defendant has paid nothing toward the clerk’s tabulation.
Defendant sought appellate relief to reduce the clerk’s entries by $115; the State argued the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review clerical entries made after the notice of appeal and that there was no justiciable controversy.
The appellate majority dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction; a dissent would have vacated the $115 as void clerk-imposed fines.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to review clerical monetary entries made by the clerk after a timely notice of appeal	No — the clerk’s entries postdated the notice of appeal and there is no final court order for the appellate court to review; also the dispute is unripe/moot since no collection has occurred	Yes — the clerk illegally imposed fines; those assessments are void and reviewable despite timing; notice of appeal reasonably encompassed the sentence and its monetary components	Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (court declined to review clerk’s March 27 entries)
Whether the dispute is ripe/justiciable absent collection or present ability to pay	Unripe/moot — harm is speculative until defendant can pay or the State attempts collection; no concrete controversy now	Ripe — prior precedent allows challenge to clerk-imposed assessments even when collection has not been attempted	Court found claim unripe and nonjusticiable; dismissed appeal
Whether clerk-generated cost/fine entries constitute a true court order and/or are void	Clerk printout is not a judicial order; may not be subject to appellate review here	Clerk-imposed fines are void because only a court can impose fines; voidness permits attack at any time	Majority: clerk printout not a true order and not properly before court; dissent: clerk-imposed fines are void and should be vacated

People v. Smith, 228 Ill. 2d 95 (defendant’s notice of appeal must fairly and adequately identify the judgment complained of)
Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 (justiciability requires a definite, concrete controversy)
People v. Gutierrez, 2012 IL 111590 (reviewing court vacated clerk-imposed public defender fee; appellate jurisdiction to address clerk-imposed assessments)
People v. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916 (clarified and narrowed the universe of "void" judgments)
People v. Flowers, 208 Ill. 2d 291 (void orders may be attacked at any time but relief requires a proceeding properly pending in the courts)