*1 Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court
People v. Garza
,
Appellate Court THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DANIEL GARZA, Defendant-Appellant. Caption Third District District & No.
Docket No. 3-16-0684 Filed November 1, 2018
Decision Under Appеal from the Circuit Court of La Salle County, No. 15-CF-404; the Hon. Cynthia M. Raccuglia, Judge, presiding. Review Affirmed. Judgment
Counsel on Jamеs E. Chadd, Peter A. Carusona, and Sean Conley, of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant. Appeal
Karen Donnelly, State’s Attorney, of Ottawa (Patrick Delfino, David J. Robinson, and Nicholas A. Atwоod, of State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, of counsel), for the People. JUSTICE O’BRIEN delivered the judgment of the court, with Panel
opinion.
Justices Holdridge and Lytton concurred in the judgment and opinion. *2 OPINION ¶ 1 Defendant, Daniel Gаrza, appeals the denial of his motion to quash court costs and fines.
We affirm. ¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND
¶ 3 Defendant entered a fully negotiated guilty plea to unlawful possession of a controlled
substance with intent to deliver (720 ILCS 570/401(a)(2)(A) (West 2014)) and aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(1), (3)(C) (West 2014)). The terms of the plea included two concurrent terms of 7½ years’ imprisonment. Additionally, defendant agreed to pay a $3000 substance abuse assessment, a $100 laboratory analysis assеssment, and a $500 street value fine. The court awarded defendant $520 in sentencing credit toward defendant’s fines, which сompletely offsets the street value fine. Subsequently, defendant filed a motion to quash court costs and fines pursuant to section
5 -9-2 of the Unified Code of Corrections (Code) (730 ILCS 5/5-9-2 (West 2016)). [1] Defendant’s motion sought to revoke his assessments on the basis that he lacked sufficient income and resources to pay his outstanding court costs. The сircuit court denied defendant’s motion, finding that it lacked jurisdiction and that the motion was untimely. II. ANALYSIS On appeal, defendant contends that the circuit court erred by dismissing defendant’s
revocation motion on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction and the motion was untimely. The
State concedes that the court’s reasoning for denying the motion was errоneous, but it argues
that the error was harmless. Upon review of the record, we accept the State’s concession of
error. See
People v. Mingo
,
analysis assessment is not a fine. It is a fee, which is not subject to revocation pursuant to
section 5-9-2 of the Code. See
People v. Littlejohn
,
assessment is a fine. However, this assessment is not subject to revocation pursuant to section 5-9-2. Instead, there are two separate statutory provisions available to a defendant seeking to reduce the balance of the substance abuse assessment. Either a defеndant “may petition the court to convert all or part of the assessment into court-approved public or community service,” or “[t]he court may suspend the collection of the assessment” if a “defendant agrees to enter a [court approved] substance abuse intervention or treatment program” (so lоng as defendant agrees to pay for some or all of the costs associated with treatment or intervеntion). See 720 ILCS 570/411.2(e), (f) (West 2016). Defendant here did not petition the court to convert the substance abuse assessmеnt into an approved public service or seek to complete an approved substance abuse intervention or treatment program. Rather, defendant sought to revoke his fines on the basis that he laсked sufficient income and resources to pay the outstanding court costs. Defendant’s ability to pay this assеssment is not an enumerated factor for the circuit court to consider when determining to reduce or revoke this fine. Because defendant failed to include a request pursuant to these statutory sections in his motion, this argument is not properly before this court. Lastly, defendant sought to revoke the street value fine. This fine is subject tо revocation
pursuant to section 5-9-2 of the Code. However, this fine was completely offset by the presentence custody credit defendant received. Therefore, remand for a hearing on the revocation of this fine is unnecessary. Consequently, we conclude that the circuit court did not err when it denied defendant’s motion to quash court costs and fines. III. CONCLUSION The judgment of the circuit court of La Salle County is affirmed. Affirmed.
Notes
[1] Although defendant did not include a citation to section 5-9-2 of the Code, both parties on appeal
agree that defendant’s motion was substantively a motion pursuant to section 5-9-2. See
People ex rel.
Ryan v. City of West Chicago
,