PEOPLE v. JOHNSON (2015)

OPINION

¶ 1 Defendant, Tracy Eugene Johnson, appeals from his burglary conviction, 30–year prison sentence, and judgment that ordered defendant to the “pay the costs of prosecution herein.” On appeal, defendant argues that the matter should be remanded with directions for the trial court to review and correct the recorded judgment for “costs” and enter the correct amount of all financial charges in a written order supported by statutory authority. We vacate the order for the “costs of prosecution” and remand with directions.

¶ 2 FACTS

¶ 3 Defendant was charged by information with burglary (720 ILCS 5/19–1(a) (West 2012)). The charging instrument alleged that defendant committed the offense on June 21, 2013. The case proceeded to a jury trial, and at the conclusion of the trial, the jury found defendant guilty.

¶ 4 On March 28, 2014, the court sentenced defendant to 30 years' imprisonment. The court awarded defendant credit for time spent in presentence custody from June 26, 2013, to March 28, 2014, a total of 276 days. The written judgment also ordered defendant to “pay the costs of prosecution herein.”

¶ 5 On April 9, 2014, the circuit clerk entered the judgment for costs in the amount of $409.02. On April 17, 2014, defendant filed a motion to reconsider his sentence which did not challenge the judgment of $409.02. On April 25, 2014, after the court denied defendant's motion to reconsider his sentence, defendant filed a notice of appeal.

¶ 6 A payment status information sheet, dated July 16, 2014, is included in the record on appeal. The payment status sheet contains the following information:

¶ 7 ANALYSIS

¶ 8 The only issue raised on appeal involves a challenge to the monetary component of defendant's sentence. Defendant asks this court to enter a summary order remanding the matter with direction for the trial court to order any mandated statutory fines and for the circuit clerk to disclose and name of those additional costs imposed by the clerk. Defendant also asks this court to direct the trial court to award the $5–per–day presentence incarceration credit for eligible fines. 725 ILCS 5/110–14 (West 2014).

¶ 9 The State opposes a summary remand, in part, because “defendant was ordered to pay costs” and “there is no indication that any fines were ordered.” Contrary to the State's conclusory assertion, the July 16, 2014, payment status information sheet contained in this record refutes the State's argument. The payment sheet clearly reveals the following fines were included in the judgment total of $409.02: $50 court system fund fine (55 ILCS 5/5–1101(c) (West 2012); People v. Ackerman, 2014 IL App (3d) 120585, ¶ 30 (holding the court systems fund assessment is a fine)); $20 Violent Crimes Victims Assistance Fund fine¹ (725 ILCS 240/10(b)(1) (West 2012); People v. Higgins, 2014 IL App (2d) 120888, ¶ 29 (finding that the clear language of the statute classifies the Violent Crimes Victims Assistance Fund assessment as a mandatory fine)); $10 medical costs fine (730 ILCS 125/17 (West 2012); People v. Jernigan, 2014 IL App (4th) 130524, ¶ 38 (holding that the $10 “Medical Costs” assessment imposed pursuant to section 17 of the County Jail Act is a fine)); $5 youth diversion fine (55 ILCS 5/5–1101(e) (West 2012); People v. Graves, 235 Ill.2d 244, 251–54 (2009) (finding that the youth diversion assessment was a fine despite its statutory label as a fee)); and $5 drug court fine (55 ILCS 5/5–1101(f) (West 2012); People v. Warren, 2014 IL App (4th) 120721, ¶ 131 (holding the $5 drug court assessment, despite its statutory label as a “fee,” was a fine because defendant never participated in drug court, and therefore, the fee did not reimburse the State for the costs of prosecuting defendant)).

¶ 10 The above listed fines may only be imposed by an order of the trial court. Warren, 2014 IL App (4th) 120721, ¶ 82 (the imposition of fines is a judicial act). The clerk of the court is a nonjudicial member of the court, and it has no power to levy fines. People v. Shaw, 386 Ill.App.3d 704, 710 (2008). A fine imposed by the circuit clerk is void. People v. Larue, 2014 IL App (4th) 120595, ¶ 56. To date, with reference to monetary sentencing errors, our supreme court has held that “[a] challenge to an alleged void order is not subject to forfeiture” and may be raised for the first time in a reviewing court. People v. Marshall, 242 Ill.2d 285, 302 (2011).

¶ 11 We recognize that correctly calculating the financial component of a felony sentence has become a very complex process, in part, because the various fines and costs are codified in several different Acts. See People v. Williams, 2013 IL App (4th) 120313, ¶ 25 (observing the complexity of the fines and fees created by the legislature and providing a reference sheet to the citation and monetary amount of several fines). In Williams, our respected colleagues from the Fourth District Appellate Court included an appendix with their opinion for the purpose of guiding the circuit courts, circuit clerks, prosecutors, and defense attorneys in that district. Id. ¶ 25. Similarly, in this case, we follow the precedent established in Williams and attach our own appendix² concerning fines and costs for the purpose of providing guidance to the trial courts in the Third District struggling with the same financial sentencing issues.

¶ 12 In conclusion, we vacate the monetary assessments imposed by the clerk in the amount of $409.02. We remand the matter to the trial court to review and correct the monetary component of defendant's sentence and allow the $5–per–day presentence incarceration credit towards the eligible fines.

¶ 13 CONCLUSION

¶ 14 The judgment of the circuit court of Rock Island County is vacated and remanded with directions.

¶ 15 Vacated and remanded with directions.

FOOTNOTES

1.  Because defendant's offense was committed in 2013, the Violent Crime Victims Assistance Fund fine should be $100.

2.  The appendix in this case is limited to felony dispositions, other than serious traffic offenses, and differs from the broader approach of the Fourth District's appendix in Williams. In addition, the appendix attached to this Opinion contains updated statutory authority, recent case law, and other useful information which has developed since Williams was published in 2013.

Justice WRIGHT delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion:

Justices HOLDRIDGE and LYTTON concurred in the judgment and opinion.