THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TYLER R. BURLINGTON, Defendant-Appellant.
NO. 4-15-0642
IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT
March 20, 2018
2018 IL App (4th) 150642
Honorable Timothy J. Steadman, Judge Presiding.
Appeal from Circuit Court of Macon County No. 14CF1263
JUSTICE TURNER delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Knecht and DeArmond concurred
OPINION
¶ 1 In October 2014, the State charged defendant, Tyler R. Burlington, with one count of burglary (
I. BACKGROUND
¶ 2 ¶ 3 The State‘s information alleged that, on October 10, 2014, defendant committed burglary, in that he, without authority, knowingly entered the building of Menards in Forsyth, Illinois. Burglary is a Class 2 felony.
¶ 4 In February 2015, the circuit court commenced defendant‘s jury trial on the burglary charge. The State presented the testimony of Donald Langlois, Menards assistant general manager, and Eric Dowdy, deputy sheriff. It also presented footage from the Menards surveillance cameras. Defendant testified on his own behalf. The evidence relevant to the issues on appeal is set forth below.
¶ 5 At around 8 p.m. on October 10, 2014, Langlois was working at Menards. One of his duties was loss prevention, and hе was responsible for observing the footage from the 42 surveillance cameras inside Menards. Defendant entered the store, went directly to a digital camera recording system, removed the system from the shelf, walked through the cash register area, and attempted to leave the store. After being stopped by a cashier, defendant attempted to return the item at
¶ 6 Deputy Dowdy testified he was on duty the night of October 10, 2014, and responded to a call at Menards around 8:47 p.m. Upon arrival, he made contact with defendant, who was wearing a black and teal Superman hoodie, jeаns, and a blue stocking cap. Defendant waived his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and Deputy Dowdy interviewed defendant in the loss prevention room. Defendant told Deputy Dowdy he had entered the store to take an item and return it for United States currency because he owed a man named Tony money for drugs. If he did not pay Tony, he would be physically harmed. Defendant also indicated he had bought a screwdriver while in Menards but that was not the reason why he went there.
¶ 7 Before defendant testified, defense counsel made a motion to exclude defendant‘s prior convictions for burglary (People v. Burlington, No. 09-CF-731 (Cir. Ct. Macon County)) and retail theft (People v. Burlington, No. 12-CF-1536 (Cir. Ct. Macon County)). Counsel did not challenge the admission of defendant‘s prior сonviction for residential burglary (People v. Burlington, No. 09-CF-1912 (Cir. Ct. Macon County)) and aggravated driving under the influence (DUI) (People v. Burlington, No. 09-CF-865 (Cir. Ct. Macon County)). After hearing the parties’ arguments, the court barred the use of defendant‘s aggravated DUI conviction for impeachment purposes but allowed the admission of the other three convictions.
¶ 8 Defendant testified he had prior convictions for burglary, residential burglary, and retail theft. When he went to Menards on the night in question, his intent was to buy a screwdriver, and he did so. Defendant denied entering the store with an intent to steal. According to defendant, he walked into the store and asked the guy next to the service desk where the screwdrivers were. He then went to the screwdrivers. Thereafter, he began walking around the store to see what else he wanted. Defendant did not find anything else. Eventually, he picked up the camera and thought he might “take it.” Defendant then decided to pay for one item and then act like he was going to walk out. Moreover, he was the one that stopped the woman and asked her where the service desk was. He walked all the way around the store and then went to the service desk. Defendant purchased the screwdriver and talked to them about returning the camera. The service desk never gave him money or a gift card, and he never left the store with a stolen item. Defendant further testifiеd he told Deputy Dowdy he owed someone $200 and decided to take the item to pay his debt when he was already in the store. Defendant testified he made up the story about owing someone money to get out of trouble. Additionally, defendant testified a 20-minute gap existed between the first and the second clip. During that period is when he talked to the man next to the service desk, obtained the screwdriver, and walked around the store.
¶ 10 At the conclusion of the trial on February 24, 2015, the jury found defendant guilty of burglary. On April 7, 2015, defendant filed a motion for a new trial or for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, asserting the State failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. At a joint April 10, 2015, hearing, the circuit court denied defendant‘s posttrial motion and sentenced him as a Class X offender to seven years’ imprisonment for burglary. In the written sentencing judgment, the court gave defendant sentencing crеdit for the period of October 12, 2014, to April 9, 2015. The court did not impose any fines. On April 23, 2015, defendant filed a notice of appeal, and this court dismissed the appeal at defendant‘s request (People v. Burlington, No. 4-15-0296 (July 1, 2015) (unpublished order dismissing the appeal)).
¶ 11 On May 8, 2015, defendant filed a motion to reconsider his sentence, contending he should not have been sentenced as a Class X offender. The State did not object, and the circuit court allowed the motion. On July 24, 2015, the court held a new sentencing hearing, at which defendant was sentenced on the Class 2 felony. The court sentenced defendant to six years’ imprisonment and gave defendant sentenсing credit for the period of October 12, 2014, to July 23, 2015. The court again did not impose any fines.
¶ 12 On August 5, 2015, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal in sufficient compliance with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 606 (eff. Dec. 11, 2014), but the notice indicated the appealed judgment was only his sentence. On August 19, 2015, defendant filed a timely amended notice of appeal under Illinois Supreme Court Rules 606(d) (eff. Dec. 11, 2014) and 303(b)(5) (eff. Jan. 1, 2015), appealing both his conviction and sentence. Thus, this court has jurisdiction of defendant‘s appeal under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 603 (eff. Feb. 6, 2013).
II. ANALYSIS
A. Reasonable Doubt
¶ 13 ¶ 14 ¶ 15 Defendant first asserts the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt hе entered Menards without authority, contending the term is ambiguous and this court should take into consideration the same factors considered by our supreme court in People v. Bradford, 2016 IL 118674, 50 N.E.3d 1112. The State disagrees. Here, defendant‘s challenge to his guilty finding is a legal one of statutory construction and not a factual one of sufficiency of the evidence. We review de novo a legal question of statutory construction. Bradford, 2016 IL 118674, ¶ 15.
¶ 16 The fundamental rule of statutory construction requires courts to ascertain and give effect to the legislature‘s intent. Id. The statutory language, given its plain and ordinary meaning, best indicates the legislature‘s intent. Id. Courts must construe the statute‘s words and phrases in light of other relevant provisions аnd not in isolation. Id. Additionally, they “may consider the reason for the law, the problems to be remedied, the purposes to be achieved, and the consequences of construing the statute one way or another.” Bradford, 2016 IL 118674, ¶ 15. Where the language is plain
¶ 17 Section 19-1(a) of the Criminal Code of 2012 (
¶ 18 Defendant contends the “without authority” language in the first type оf burglary is ambiguous like the supreme court found with the second type of burglary in Bradford. He further asserts an intent to steal does not remove one‘s authority to be in the store. However, the Bradford court did not find the “without authority” language ambiguous. It simply concluded the defendant presented the only reasonable reading of the burglary statute. Bradford, 2016 IL 118674, ¶ 25. Moreover, unlike the “without authority” language in the second type of burglary, which the supreme court had not interpreted before the Bradford decision, our supreme court has already interpreted the meaning of the “without authority” language for the first type of burglary.
¶ 19 Fifty years ago, in People v. Weaver, 41 Ill. 2d 434, 243 N.E.2d 245 (1968), our supreme court addressed the “without аuthority” language of the first type of burglary. There, the police had observed the defendant in a self-service laundromat standing near a vending machine, of which the door was open. Weaver, 41 Ill. 2d at 435. When they frisked the defendant for weapons, they discovered more than $50 in coins in his pocket. Weaver, 41 Ill. 2d at 435-36. The defendant was found guilty of burglary, possession of burglary tools, and theft. Weaver, 41 Ill. 2d at 435. On appeal, the defendant argued the State‘s evidence failed to establish the crime of burglary beyond a reasonable doubt because the laundromat was open to the public at the time in question, he could have entered as a business invitee, and his presеnce in the laundromat is as consistent with his innocence as with his guilt regarding criminal intent at the time of his entry. Weaver, 41 Ill. 2d at 438.
¶
¶ 21 Our supreme court followed its holding in Weaver in the case of People v. Blair, 52 Ill. 2d 371, 374, 288 N.E.2d 443, 445 (1972), where it rejected the two defendants’ argument a car wash was a public place and, thus their entry was not “without authority.” Numerous appellate court cases have also followed Weaver‘s holding that entry of a public building with the intent to commit theft constitutes an entry “without authority.” See People v. Gharrett, 2016 IL App (4th) 140315, ¶ 53, 53 N.E.3d 332 (cоllecting cases). One such case with facts similar to those before us is People v. Rudd, 2012 IL App (5th) 100528, ¶ 13, 970 N.E.2d 580.
¶ 22 In Rudd, ¶ 2, the State charged the defendant with retail theft (
¶ 23 As stated, defendant‘s argument relies on our supreme court‘s decision in Bradford. There, the court held “an individual commits burglary by remaining in a public place only where he exceeds his physical authority to
¶ 24 In reaching the aforementioned conclusion, the Bradford court rejected the State‘s argument that was adopted by this court. Citing Weaver, this court concluded that, “just as a defendant‘s entry is ‘without authority’ if it is accompanied by a contemporaneous intent to steal, so too must a defendant‘s remaining be ‘without authority’ if it also is accompanied by an intent to steal.” (Emphases omitted.) People v. Bradford, 2014 IL App (4th) 130288, ¶ 28, 21 N.E.3d 753. We found that, during defendant‘s multiple acts of shoplifting, his purpose for being in the store was not consistent with the purposе for which the store was open to the public. Bradford, 2014 IL App (4th) 130288, ¶ 34. Thus, this court concluded the evidence presented at trial the defendant “remained” in the store with the intent to commit a theft was sufficient in itself to convict the defendant of the second type of burglary. Bradford, 2014 IL App (4th) 130288, ¶ 34.
¶ 25 The supreme court also found this court‘s holding conflicted with the legislative intent behind the enactment of the retail theft statute. Bradford, 2016 IL 118674, ¶ 27. It noted this court‘s conclusion a defendant may be found guilty of burglary where he develops an intent to steal after his entry into a public building “encompasses nearly all cases of retail theft, effectively negating the retail theft statute.” Id. Howevеr, the retail theft statute was enacted for the purpose of combating the growing problem of retail theft in Illinois and, unlike burglary, “takes into account various factors, including the value of the property taken, a defendant‘s prior record, and how the property was acquired.” Id.
¶ 26 Last, the supreme court found our interpretation of the “remaining within” language was at odds with the historical development of the burglary statute. Bradford, 2016 IL 118674, ¶ 29. It concluded “burglary by remaining” was intended to incorporate the crime of “burglar found in building.” Id. The supreme court further found the “burglar found in building” provision necessarily implied that the building or area where the dеfendant was found or discovered was closed to him or the public. Id.
¶ 27 We find the supreme court‘s decision in Bradford does not affect the holding of Weaver and its progeny. While it rejected the State‘s interpretation of the second type of burglary based on Weaver‘s holding, the decision in no way indicated Weaver was no longer good law for the first type of burglary. The supreme court specifically only addressed the second type of burglary. The Bradford decision did not state an entry into a public building with a criminal intent is now a lawful entry. Additionally, unlike the second type of burglary, the “burglary found in building” provision‘s development over time does not impact the first type of burglary.
¶ 28 As to the impact of the enactment of the retail theft statute on the first type
“Not all of the elements of retail theft аre included in the offense of burglary and retail theft contains elements that are not included in burglary. Retail theft requires a ‘taking’ whereas burglary does not. Likewise, retail theft requires that the defendant fail to pay for the merchandise. Burglary does not. Lastly, the requisite intents of each offense are different. Thus, it is possible to commit burglary without necessarily committing retail theft.” Miller, 238 Ill. 2d at 176.
The Miller decision indicates the first type of burglary and retail theft are two separate offenses that can both stand for the entry and later taking committed during the same incident, undermining the assertion the first type of burglary eviscerates the retail theft statute.
¶ 29 Moreоver, applying defendant‘s interpretation that the intent to commit a theft does not remove one‘s authority to enter a retail store eliminates many types of burglary that do not involve retail theft. For example, in People v. Drake, 172 Ill. App. 3d 1026, 1028, 527 N.E.2d 519, 520 (1988), the defendant argued he was not proved guilty of burglary beyond a reasonable doubt because his entry into the grocery store was authorized. Citing Weaver, the reviewing court disagreed with the defendant, finding defendant did not have the authority to enter the grocery store with the intent to commit a forgery and thus his burglary conviction was proper. Drake, 172 Ill. App. 3d at 1028.
¶ 30 Additionally, if the legislature did not agree with the supreme court‘s interpretation оf the “without authority” language as to the first type of burglary and the Illinois courts’ application of that language to incidents where the person entered a business with the intent to commit a retail theft, it could have amended the burglary statute to eliminate that application. It has not done so. Illinois courts have applied Weaver‘s interpretation of the first type of burglary repeatedly and consistently for 50 years, and thus the legislature has had ample time to contravene that interpretation. This consistent judicial interpretation of the “without authority” language in the first type of burglary is considered a part of the statutе until the legislature amends it contrary to that interpretation. See People v. Woodard, 175 Ill. 2d 435, 444, 677 N.E.2d 935, 940 (1997). As stated, the Bradford decision specifically addressed only the second type of burglary and thus is not the prevailing construction of the “without authority” language for the first type of burglary.
¶ 31 Accordingly, we reject defendant‘s argument and continue to follow Weaver‘s holding that entry of a public building with
¶ 32 We recognize our holding is inconsistent with the Third District‘s holding in People v. Johnson, 2018 IL App (3d) 150352, ¶ 35, in which it concluded Bradford‘s physical authority test applied to all retail theft cases, regardless of when the defendant formed the intent to shoplift. As previously explained, the supreme court in Bradford was very clear it was only addressing the second type of burglary and not both types. Moreover, the Johnson decision appears to find the legislature‘s enactment of the retail theft statute in 1975 implicitly removes retail theft from the “intent to commit therein a felony or theft” language of the burglary statute. See Johnson, ¶ 33. However, the burglary statute and the Weaver decision existed before the enactment of the retail theft statute, and the legislature has yet to amend the burglary statute to state the exception found in Johnson. In construing a statute, courts cannot read words into the statute that are not there. People v. Sedlacek, 2013 IL App (5th) 120106, ¶ 28, 986 N.E.2d 1281. Additionally, we disagree with Johnson‘s focus on prosecutorial discretion. “Generally, prosecutorial discretion is a valuable aspect of the criminal justice system.” People v. Christy, 139 Ill. 2d 172, 180, 564 N.E.2d 770, 774 (1990). The fact that more than one offense covers a defendant‘s course of conduct has never been a valid reason for removing the discretion of the prosecutor to decide which offense, if any, to charge. Thus, we disagree with Johnson‘s statement “[c]ourts should not interpret criminal statutes to provide prosecutors unbridled discretion to arbitrarily charge some shoplifters with Class 2 felony burglary and others with Class A misdemeanor retail theft under similar circumstances.” Johnson, ¶ 30. Concerns over the exercise of prosecutorial discretion cannot alter the plain language of a statute.
B. Impeachment with Prior Convictions
¶ 33 ¶ 34 Defеndant next contends the circuit court erred by allowing him to be impeached with his prior residential burglary and burglary convictions. Defendant acknowledges he failed to raise this issue in his posttrial motion, and thus he has forfeited it. See People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176, 186, 522 N.E.2d 1124, 1130 (1988) (to preserve an issue for review, the defendant must object at trial and raise the issue in a written posttrial motion). He requests we review this issue under the plain-error doctrine. See
¶ 35 The plain-error doctrine permits a reviewing court to consider unpreserved error under the following two scenarios:
“(1) a clear or obvious error occurred and the evidence is so closely balanced that the error alone threatened to tip the scales of justice against the defendant, regardless of the seriousness of the error, or (2) a clear or obvious error occurred and that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant‘s trial and challenged the integrity of the judicial process, regardless of the closeness of the evidence.” People v. Sargent, 239 Ill. 2d 166, 189, 940 N.E.2d 1045, 1058 (2010).
We begin our plain-error analysis by first determining whether any error occurred at all. Sargent, 239 Ill. 2d at 189. If error did occur, this court then considers whether either of the two prongs of the plain-error doctrine has been satisfied. Sargent, 239 Ill. 2d at 189-90. Under both prongs, the defendant bears the burden of persuasion. Sargent, 239 Ill. 2d at 190.
¶ 36 In People v. Montgomery, 47 Ill. 2d 510, 268 N.E.2d 695 (1971), our supreme court addressed the admissibility of evidence of a witness‘s prior conviction to impeach the witness‘s credibility. There, our supreme court held evidence of a witness‘s prior conviction is admissible to attack the witness‘s credibility where:
“(1) the prior crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year, or involved dishonesty or false statement regardless of the punishment; (2) less than 10 years has elapsed since the date of conviction of the prior crime or release of the witness from confinement, whichever is later; and (3) the probative value of admitting the prior conviction outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice.” People v. Mullins, 242 Ill. 2d 1, 14, 949 N.E.2d 611, 619 (2011) (citing Montgomery, 47 Ill. 2d at 516).
The third factor requires the circuit court to conduct a balancing test, weighing the prior conviction‘s probative value against its potential prejudice. Mullins, 242 Ill. 2d at 14. In performing the balancing test, the court should consider, inter alia, the following: “the nature оf the prior conviction, the nearness or remoteness of that crime to the present charge, the subsequent career of the person, the length of the witness’ criminal record, and whether the crime was similar to the one charged.” Mullins, 242 Ill. 2d at 14-15. The determination of whether a witness‘s prior conviction is admissible for impeachment purposes rests within the circuit court‘s sound discretion. Mullins, 242 Ill. 2d at 15. A circuit court “abuses its discretion when its decision is ‘fanciful, arbitrary, or unreasonable to the degree that no reasonable person would agree with it.‘” People v. Kladis, 2011 IL 110920, ¶ 23, 960 N.E.2d 1104 (quoting People v. Ortega, 209 Ill. 2d 354, 359, 808 N.E.2d 496 (2004)).
¶ 37 Here, both of defendant‘s convictions meet the first two prongs of the test, and thus only the third рrong is at issue. Defendant asserts that, since he could be impeached with the retail theft conviction, the circuit court abused its discretion by also admitting the burglary and residential burglary conviction because they are the same offense for which he was on trial. In support of his argument, he cites People v. Encalado, 2017 IL App (1st) 142548, 73 N.E.3d 562, appeal allowed, No. 122059, 84 N.E.3d 365 (Ill. May 24, 2017). There, the reviewing court noted the following: “‘Where multiple convictions of various kinds can be shown, strong reasons arise for excluding those which are for the same crime because of the inevitable pressure on lay jurors to believe that if he did it before he probably did so this time. As a general guide, those convictions which are for the same crime should be admitted sparingly ***.‘” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Encalado, ¶ 23 (quoting Gordon v. United States, 383 F.2d 936, 940 (D.C. Cir. 1967)).
¶ 38 This case is similar to our supreme court‘s decision in People v. Atkinson, 186 Ill. 2d 450, 461, 713 N.E.2d 532, 537 (1999), where it found the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by holding the defendant‘s two prior burglary convictions could be admitted for purposes of impeachment during the defendant‘s burglary trial. Addressing the third prong of the Montgomery test, our supreme court noted defendant‘s testimony was his entire defense. Atkinson, 186 Ill. 2d at 461-62. Thus, the defendant‘s credibility was the central issue, and his prior convictions were crucial in measuring the defendant‘s credibility. Atkinson, 186 Ill. 2d at 462. The supreme court did emphasize circuit courts should be cautiоus in admitting prior convictions for the same crime as the crime charged. Atkinson, 186 Ill. 2d at 463. However, “similarity alone does not mandate exclusion of the prior conviction.” Id. Additionally, the supreme court noted the circuit court “strictly limited the use of the prior convictions by providing the jury with an instruction limiting their evidentiary use to impeachment.” Id.
¶ 39 Here, the record shows the circuit court conducted the balancing test set forth in the third prong of the Montgomery test and found the probative value of the prior residential burglary and burglary convictions outweighed the danger of unfair prejudice. Like in Atkinson, defendant‘s testimony was his sole defense, and thus defendant‘s рrior convictions were crucial in measuring his credibility. See Atkinson, 186 Ill. 2d at 461-62. Neither convictions were remote in time to the offenses at issue in this case. Additionally, burglary is considered a crime of dishonesty. People v. Paul, 304 Ill. App. 3d 404, 410, 710 N.E.2d 499, 503 (1999). The existence of two similar convictions does not in itself make the convictions’ probative value outweighed by prejudice. See Atkinson, 186 Ill. 2d at 461 (two prior burglary convictions in a burglary trial); People v. Blair, 102 Ill. App. 3d 1018, 1026-27, 429 N.E.2d 1375, 1381 (1981) (four prior burglary convictions in a burglary trial). Additionally, defendant‘s retail theft conviction was similar to the burglary charge in this case, and thus this is not a situation where other dissimilar prior convictions of dishonesty could have been used to impeach defendant. Moreover, as in Atkinson, the circuit court gave IPI Criminal No. 3.13, which stated defendant‘s prior convictions were to be considered only as to defendant‘s credibility and not as evidence of defendant‘s guilt of the charged offenses.
¶ 40 Accordingly, we find the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by allowing defendant‘s impeachment with his prior burglary and residential burglary convictions.
¶ 41 ¶ 42 Defendant further contends he is entitled to two additional days of sentencing credit because he was arrested on October 10, 2014, and the circuit court only awarded him sentencing credit for the period of October 12, 2014, to July 23, 2015. The State concedes the issue.
¶ 43 Section 5-4.5-100(b) of the Unified Code of Corrections (
D. Fines and Fees
¶ 44 ¶ 45 Last, defendant challenges the fines imposed in his case, as well as the $5 electronic citation fee. The State agrees with defendant‘s contentions.
¶ 46 “Although circuit clerks can have statutory authority to impose a fee, they lack authority to impose a fine, because the imposition of a fine is exclusively a judicial act.” (Emphases omitted.) People v. Smith, 2014 IL App (4th) 121118, ¶ 18, 18 N.E.3d 912. Thus, “any fines imposed by the circuit clerk are void from their inception.” People v. Larue, 2014 IL App (4th) 120595, ¶ 56, 10 N.E.3d 959. A void judgment can be challenged “‘at any time or in any court, еither directly or collaterally.‘” Sarkissian v. Chicago Board of Education, 201 Ill. 2d 95, 103, 776 N.E.2d 195, 201 (2002) (quoting Barnard v. Michael, 392 Ill. 130, 135, 63 N.E.2d 858, 862 (1945)).
¶ 47 We find the following assessments are fines: (1) the $15 State Police operations assessment (labeled “State Police Ops“) (People v. Millsap, 2012 IL App (4th) 110668, ¶ 31, 979 N.E.2d 1030); (2) the $50 court finance assessment (labeled “Court“) (Smith, 2014 IL App (4th) 121118, ¶ 54); (3) the $10 arrestee‘s medical costs assessment (labeled “Medical Costs“) (Larue, 2014 IL App (4th) 120595, ¶ 57); (4) the $100 assessment under the Violent Crime Victims Assistance Act (labeled “Violent Crime“) (People v. Warren, 2016 IL App (4th) 120721-B, ¶ 142, 55 N.E.3d 117); (5) the $4.75 drug court program assessment (Warren, 2016 IL App (4th) 120721-B, ¶ 138); (6) the $28.50 Children‘s Advocacy Center assessment (labeled “Child Advocacy Fee“) (People v. Jones, 397 Ill. App. 3d 651, 660-61, 921 N.E.2d 768, 775 (2009)); (7) the $5 youth diversion assessment (labeled “Youth Diversion“) (People v. Beasley, 2017 IL App (4th) 150291, ¶ 44, 85 N.E.3d 568); (8) the juvenile expungement assessment, which is listed on the clerk‘s printout as a $12 assessment for the Clerk Operations and Administrative Fund (labeled “Clerk Op Add-Ons“), a $10 assessment for the State‘s Attorney Office Fund (the $10 assessmеnt for the State‘s Attorney is included in the $40 charge listed for the “State‘s Atty” on the clerk‘s printout), and a $10 assessment for the State Police Services Fund (labeled
¶ 48 Additionally, defendant argues the $5 electronic citation fee (“E-Citation Fee“) does not apply to this case. The State concedes the issue. Section 27.3e of the Clerks of Courts Act (
III. CONCLUSION
¶ 49 ¶ 50 For the reasons stated, we vacate the improperly imposed fines set forth supra ¶ 47 and the $5 electronic citation fee, affirm as modified the Macon County circuit court‘s judgment in all other respects, and remand the cause with directions. As part of our judgment, we award the State its $75 statutory assessment against defendant as costs of this appeal.
¶ 51 Affirmed in part as modified and vacated in part; cause remanded with directions.