THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KHALED W. ALGHADI, Defendant-Appellant.
Docket No. 4-10-0012
Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District
October 17, 2011
2011 IL App (4th) 100012
Hon. Thomas J. Difanis, Judge, presiding.
ILLINOIS OFFICIAL REPORTS Appellate Court People v. Alghadi, 2011 IL App (4th) 100012
(Note: This syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the rеader.)
Defendant‘s convictions for robbery and residential burglary were affirmed, but the circuit clerk‘s assessment of fines and fees on the residential burglary conviction was vacated, the cause was remanded for a hearing to determine which fees and fines wеre in relation to the residential burglary conviction, and the trial court was directed to consider applying the credit arising from defendant‘s presentence incarceration when it reimposes the fines and fees.
Decision Under Review
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Chamрaign County, No. 08-CF-729; the Hon. Thomas J. Difanis, Judge, presiding.
Judgment
Affirmed in part; vacated in part; appeal dismissed in part; and cause remanded with directions.
Michael J. Pelletier, Karen Munoz, and Nancy L. Vincent, all of State Appellate Defender‘s Office, of Springfield, for аppellant.
Julia Rietz, State‘s Attorney, of Urbana (Patrick Delfino, Robert J. Biderman, and Anastacia R. Brooks, all of State‘s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor‘s Office, of counsel), for the People.
Panel
PRESIDING JUSTICE KNECHT delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Justices Turner аnd Appleton concurred in the judgment and opinion.
OPINION
¶ 1 In March 2009, a jury found defendant, Khaled W. Alghadi, guilty of robbery (
¶ 2 In September 2009, defendant pleaded guilty to residential burglary (
¶ 3 Thereafter, defendant was assessed two $20 Violent Crime Victims Assistance Act (VCVA) fines and two $5 drug-court fеes. In February 2010, the circuit clerk sent defendant two notices for collection of his unpaid costs and fines in the amounts of $1,868.75 and $432.06. Because nothing had been paid, the circuit clerk assessed two late fees of $187.50 and $43.35 and two collection fees of $431.25 and $99.71.
¶ 4 Dеfendant appeals the judgment on his residential-burglary conviction, arguing the following: (1) the circuit clerk lacked authority to assess the two $20 VCVA fines and the two $5 drug-court fees; (2) if the assessments were properly imposed, then defendant is entitled to a $5-per-day crеdit against his fines under
¶ 5 On April 16, 2008, the State charged defendant in a two-count information with (1) residential burglary (
¶ 6 In March 2009, the case proceeded to a jury trial on the robbery count, and the jury found defendant guilty. In April 2009, the trial court sentenced him to 7 years’ imprisonment with credit for 313 days previously served. Defendant appealed, and this court ultimately dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction because his notice of appeal was untimely. People v. Alghadi, No. 4-09-0424 (Dec. 6, 2010) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23).
¶ 7 In September 2009, defendant pleaded guilty to the residential-burglary charge (
¶ 8 At the sentencing hearing, the trial court failed to specifically identify any assessed fees and fines. A docket entry made thе same date shows defendant was assessed a charge of $1,250 for costs and would be assessed “[f]ines and/or [c]ost/[p]enalties and [f]ees” as part of his sentence for the residential-burglary conviction. However, this docket entry does not mention any VCVA fine or drug-court fee. Further, the docket entry provides “[a]ll financial obligations shall be paid in equal monthly installments to the Champaign County Circuit Clerk by.” (It appears the due date was inadvertently left out of the docket entry.) Thereafter, defendant was assessed two $20 VCVA fines and two $5 drug-court fees.
¶ 9 On November 10, 2009, defendant filed a motion to withdraw his plea, or alternatively, to reconsider the sentence, arguing his counsel was ineffective for giving him the following mistaken information: (1) if he entered a guilty plea, the trial court would sentencе him to 10 years’ imprisonment; and (2) if he proceeded to trial and was convicted, he could be sentenced up to a 30-year extended-term sentence. Further, defendant argued his 15-year sentence was excessive. On December 22, 2009, the court denied defendant‘s motions.
¶ 10 On January 5, 2010, defendant filed a notice of appeal for his residential-burglary conviction. In February 2010, the circuit clerk sent defendant two notices for collection of his unpaid costs and fines in the amounts of $1,868.75 and $432.06. Because nothing had been paid, the circuit clerk assessed two late fees of $187.50 and $43.35 and two collection fees of $431.25 and $99.71.
II. ANALYSIS
¶ 11 On appeal, defendant argues the following: (1) the circuit clerk lacked authority to assess two $20 VCVA fines and the two $5 drug-court fees; (2) if the assessments were properly imposed, then defendant is entitled to a $5-per-day credit against his fines under
¶ 12 First, defendant argues the trial court did not order defеndant to pay the two $20 VCVA fines and the two $5 drug-court fees. Consequently, defendant argues these fines should be vacated because the circuit clerk lacks authority to impose mandatory fines. Alternatively, defendant argues he should be entitled to a $5-per-day сredit against these fines.
¶ 13 The State concedes the trial court never judicially imposed the VCVA fines and the drug-court fees. However, the State argues this court should reimpose a mandatory $20 VCVA fine pursuant to
¶ 14 In his reply brief, defendant agreed this court has the ability to reimpose mandatory fines. If reimposed, defendant requests any imposed fines be offset by his sentence credit. However, defendant notes the State assumed the fines were assessed per count, but the “counts [were] not delineated in the clerk‘s records of monetary charges.”
¶ 15
¶ 16 Further,
¶ 17 In this case, the record reveals defendant was assessed duplicate fees and fines for the following: (1) a $5 document-storage fee; (2) a $5 automation fee; (3) a $100 circuit-clerk fee; (4) a $25 court-security fee; (5) a $10 arrestee‘s mеdical assessment; (6) a $50 court-finance fee; (7) a $30 State‘s Attorney assessment; (8) a $20 VCVA fine; and (9) a $5 drug-court fee. Presumably, defendant was twice assessed these fees and fines because his robbery charge and his residential-burglary charge were severed. However, the original case number was retained (Champaign county case No. 08-CF-729) for both cases, and the circuit clerk‘s “fees & fines information” (see appendix) does not clearly set forth what assessments were made in the residential-burglary conviction and what assessments were made in the robbery conviction. From a review of the record, it appears the first “set” of assessments relates to
¶ 18 Also, the record shows the trial court did not impose the two $20 VCVA fines and the two $5 drug-court fees, and the fees later appeared on the circuit clerk‘s “fines & fees information.” The imposition of a fine is a judiciаl act, and the circuit clerk has no authority to levy fines, including mandatory fines. People v. Scott, 152 Ill. App. 3d 868, 873, 505 N.E.2d 42, 46 (1987). Therefore, any fines imposed by the circuit clerk‘s office are void from their inception. See Scott, 152 Ill. App. 3d at 873, 505 N.E.2d at 46 (cause remanded for proper imposition of the VCVA fine by the trial court).
¶ 19 Assuming the circuit clerk imposed the $20 VCVA fine and the $5 drug-court fee as part of defendant‘s residential-burglary conviction, we vacate those fines. Although the fines in this case were improperly assessed by the circuit clerk, this court has authority to reimpose mandatory fines. See Scott, 152 Ill. App. 3d at 873, 505 N.E.2d at 46 (fines established by the VCVA are mandatory); see also People v. Folks, 406 Ill. App. 3d 300, 305, 943 N.E.2d 1128, 1132 (2010) (“Although the statutory language relating to the drug-court assessment is permissive, the assessment is mandatory once the county board enacts the ordinance.“).
¶ 20 However, we will not reimpose these fines because the record reveals defendant was already assessed a $20 VCVA fine and a $5 drug-court fee. Although a defendant may be charged with multiple counts within the same case number, the defendant may only be assessed (1) one document-storage feе, (2) one automation fee, (3) one circuit-clerk fee, (4) one court-security fee, (5) one arrestee‘s-medical assessment, (6) one court-finance fee, (7) one State‘s Attorney assessment, (8) one VCVA fine, and (9) one drug-court fee. The severance оf the residential-burglary charge and the robbery charge within the same case number is of no moment. Accordingly, although this issue was not raised by the parties, we vacate all duplicate fees and fines imposed in relation to the residential-burglary conviction.
¶ 21 Additiоnally, we are not vacating the collection and late fees assessed in relation to the residential-burglary conviction because these fees are not properly before us on direct appeal. See People v. Jake, 2011 IL App (4th) 090779, ¶ 24, 2011 WL 3587470 (this court lacked jurisdiction to consider the defendant‘s late-and-collection-fee argument because the fees were assessed after the defendant filed his notice of appeal).
¶ 22 Here, defendant filed his notice of appeal for the residential-burglary conviction on January 5, 2010. From a review of the record, it appears defendant was assessed late and collection fees for unpaid costs and fines in February 2010. Therefore, we do not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of defendant‘s argument in this case (dеfendant argued the circuit clerk lacked authority to assess the late and collection fees) and, accordingly, we dismiss this portion of defendant‘s appeal. Further, we note defendant asks us to vacate all late and collection fees imposed by the circuit clerk. However, we have only addressed the late and collection fees imposed in the residential-burglary case because it is the only conviction subject to this appeal.
III. CONCLUSION
¶ 23 For the reasons stated, we affirm defendant‘s cоnviction and sentence. We (1) vacate the
¶ 24 Affirmed in part; vacated in part; appeal dismissed in part; and cause remanded with directions.