regarding the procedural history in this case mr williams was convicted of aggravated battery in domestic battery and he was sentenced for both of those offenses as part of his sentence he received a two year term the mandatory supervised release on appeal mr william challenges convictions and his sentences stating that as to the sentences he received a excessive term of mandatory supervised release for the aggravated battery conviction that being at the applicable statutes only allowed for a one regarding the m s r contested the issue regarding mr williams his convictions and petition the appellate court for a fee for suit to the state's attorney's fees statute the defendant in his reply brief objected to the imposition of the state's attorney's feet while arguing that he ha the ultimate issue in this appeal is when exactly a state's attorney is entitled to it be pursuant to the statute and there's one very important provision that's going to kind of run a central thread through this argument and that's something that both the state and defense have agreed to in their briefs and that is that provision such as this allowing for the recovery of costs were unknown at common law and therefore the need to be strictly construed this court and re w w examine the same statute and construed in favor of the person to whom the fee was being charged in that case it was a minor the court went on to say the statute will not be extended further than what the language of the statue absolutely requires by its express terms are clear implication so  in this case the defendant would say that he is deserve no less treatment than the minor was in and re w w and the statute must be strictly construed in his favor the plain language of the statute in the provision that we're discussing today specifically is where the statute says judgment is in favor of the accused that being the state's attorney is not entitled to a fee or judgment is in favor of the accused the statute does not further define that phrase innocent defense position consistent with how the second district is held but if the defendant receives any judgment in his favor as mr williams did in this case with missing judgement on the mandatory supervised release issue he has received a judgment in his favor the fourth in the fifth district have said that if a defendant receives only partial judgement on appeal and therefore the status receive partial judgment the state has received a judgment in its favor and therefore the defendant is responsible for paying it it's through mr wilson that in the thirty one years since nichols was  plane then language in the right of reducing unless judgement in in that case is entitle and in favor of the accused the appeal will be taxed as costs against the defendant even if convictions as one or more calls but not as to all under this case if nichols is the case that the the court finds is actually done by i would agree with that the issue with nichols again though is it didn't address the strict construction language of the statute or the strict construction  if we if we really do your favor on this case yes or should we overturn nichols on that issue i would say that nichols at least needs to be clarified nichols or at least i should say that provision of nichols yes he would have to overrule that provision of nichols allowing for the requirement that a defendant pay the fee where that essentially the appeal has been split between the state and the defense there is an additional issue with nic however that was addressed in the briefs and that is the plain language of the statute regarding who is entitle to the feet in this case as i said it was the state's attorney a public prosecutor who handled the case on appeal the plain language of the statu however says and i'm just going to read it it's relatively brief the state's attorney shall be entitled to the following fees for each case of a kill taken from his county or from the county to which a change of venue is taken to his county to supreme  when prosecuted or defended by him the plain language of the statute essentially requires that it be the state's attorney and the other party who brings that case on behalf of the state the court in nichols apparently th wasn't brought up by the parties as it wasn't addressed in nichols but i think the plain language of the statute clearly shows that it's only a political in situations where the state's attorney is the party who is actually litigating the appeal or the party who is posturing or defending the appeal pursuant to the plain language of the statute the state has countered this argument by saying that the state attorney's name was on the brief and i should say the brief on the appellate court and i should say that the state also nothing in the record that says that he was or he was not the role of an issue though is whether the state attorney prosecutor or defended this case simply having your name on the briefs does not show that you prosecutor or defendant the case it's essentially a ministerial act of of adding on they were also added to the service list in the case and certainly because the state's turn didn't prosecutor defend the the case before this court nichols would have to be clarif representing his county on appeal certainly the prosecutor in this case could have informed the prosecutor's office that he wanted to go ahead and litigate this in self but he chose not to do that additionally the state has made no argument in response to  i think that's really what this statute is geared at as justice fitzgerald is pointed out you know a minute has been made to the statute a very long time and i think the original intent behind the statute was to provide some funding to states paid or i should say they're not paying from this fifty dollars fifty dollars goes to the state's attorney and so it really doesn't make a lot of sense for the state to try to receive fifty dollars when there's no information in the record that they did anything regarding this the fourth and fifth districts have said that a defendant is responsible for paying the fee where there is a split on appeal where the state has prevailed and partly defendant has prevailed on part of the state are going to however takes it one step further the state's argument is that a defendant is always responsible for paying the fifty dollar fee as long as at the conclusion of his appeal he still remains a convicted defendant so in a case such as mr williams hypothetically speaking the let's just say on appeal the sole issue was the manager or supervised release in challenges convictions and the state conceded that issue and therefore mr williams would have won a judgment in his favor on appeal according to the state he in addition would have still had to pay the state's attorney's fee because he would not even though he would have prevailed on appeal he would not have received a judgment in his favor now the state gets that because they create the judgment in favor of a defendant to having his convictions vacated and again that's where i i believe that the strict construction of the statute is very important because the if the parties are unable to go past the explicit language or implication of the statute and that's exactly what what the state is doing in this case they are essentially substitute in words that aren't in the statute and there is really nothing mr hatchett to suggest that the state's position is correct that being there in every single appeal where conviction is maintained the defendant looked at the elena criminal code and i know the state has said that that might not be the proper place to look the at the only criminal code was the definition was found in the only criminal code because especially in light of this being a criminal case where the statute says judgment in favor of the accused it would be a criminal judgment so in the only criminal code you get i'm just going to to read it's a statutory provision in the criminal code a judgment is an adjudication by the court that the defendant is guilty or not guilty favor however it's the state's are you know that because his conviction was reversed he was sought to pay the state's attorney's fee now that's consistent with any sensing issue or fines and fees that are frequently appealed to any issue short of the defense convictions to whether a conviction well for example i think you use the situation if you would only raise the m s r issue then you would have prevailed on the only issue raised but i think you're right the to say the sheriff shall be entitled to feel for the service of process and an issue such as that so even though i knew the state construe that to mean it's equally applicable to appeals it seems to you by its very terms none of that self somewhat to a trial court in addition there's a there's a fundamental issue here that is something that is hard for me at least to understand and it does address this the state's argument and your point justice thomas in that this should have never happened it is the state's duty as kind of the purveyor of justice in the state of illinois to make sure that convictions are proper and sentences are imposer proper it was the state's two years much as it was the courts as much as it was defense counsels to point out that mr williams is m s r term was incorrect at the time of sentencing however that wasn't done until his direct appeal mr williams no one came to mr williams to correct his sentence for him mr williams had had to take the initiative and file an appeal challenging this issue now take a case like when the m s r she was the sole issue on appeal he appeals that he gets relief something that never should happen should have been since appropriately in the first place and in addition to having to take th initiative in giving them the relief the state requires him to pay fifty dollars fee and there's just something that it's just is coming at a cost and there's something that seems fundamentally unfair about that as well i'm sorry did i interrupt you no no i was hired i understand your point  with respect to that but that is only in the case where there is an appeals just going on one is sure but the state says it really wouldn't matter i mean take me example of mr one just appealing his manager or supervis release issue in that case even if he appealed that issue and he was successful on that he got in judgment in his favor on appeal but according to say he still has to pay the state's attorney's fee again that's all i'm trying to relate it to to your point making the argument that he prevailed on his appeal should have to pay the fee and again it's a strict construction it has to be interpreted in favor of mr williams and the position of mr williams is taking is consistent with the statute he received a judgment in his favor the position that the state is taking is that you can substitute judgment with convictions and there are other statutes you relate back to the thank shows that a judgment equals a conviction but pursuit of a strict construction and the quote that i read from a to b w but talks about how you can extend the statute by its natural terms or its implication i think clearly shows that mr williams his position is fully supported by the political president and the states really isn't in addition there's one other policy consideration that just merits a brief mention there are cases that are litigated all the time i mention them all earlier fines and fees cases by dollar day cases such as credit cases issues like that may very well slip through the cracks of the state's position is accepted and the reason is if a defendant were to go to his attorney or if a train were to read a record on appeal and see  that a thirty dollars value fine was given to a defendant without any appropriate hearing it behooves the defendant not to raise that issue that's going to be a sole issue because on one hand he would be able to appeal a thirty dollar tree value fine and get vacated if there was no the morning your hours of may please the court my name is charles redfern i'm from the office of the on oil tourney general here today on behalf of the people state of illinois first to start with nickles your honour's are correct peoples is the controlling president and nichols has been the president for thirty one years from th court there has been no action from the general assembly to alter or to cast doubt on nichols and this court's case law subsequent to nichols has been consistent with nichols i also wish to point out i'd like to point out first specifically it's  seventy one illinois second and one seventy three which is in nichols in nichols it considered the point that the defendant said that it did not specifically nichols did can point out that the defendant correct notes that the allowance and recovery costs being unknown come in more rests entirely upon the statutory of the provisions which must be strictly construed so that concern of strict construes of these provisions was in nichols that's the our only argument that he presented saying that it wasn't nic fee if you raise all of your most yes and eat it is worth it at the outset noting that that would be a different case obviously as your honour's hypothetical he would be responsible but at least to make a complete point here in this case he lost his three major issues he challenged his scent he challenged the one actor in one crime application he challenged the admission of evidence and he challenged a jury instruction so in this case he lost the majority but in the situation of a defendant who would have only brought one claim of the m a sar that defendant under the plain language of the statutes would be responsible and that is section one twenty four seven twenty five i'll see process to incur costs for the prosecution it is absolutely correct that the state has a duty to do justice but it also costs money to bring prosecutions when the defendant took his criminal actions you know when he came home with three in the morning and kicked down the door and held a knife to his girlfriend's throat that not only created a criminal proceeding but it also imposed a financial burden on the taxpayers who now have to go forth and fun prosecutors who have to go and prosecute the defendant and things financial burden upon the county because we have to pay for prosecutors and to have him pay some of that fee and not only is he paying he said well i and i'm the only one paying here the county in the state certainly has more expenses than fifty specific questions maybe conduct tale into it and the issue of whether of the fee applies if sap handles the appeal what do you believe is the meaning of the language quote when prosecuted or defended by him which was raised by mr wilson's and does your interpretation render that language is superb for curst if i may just to to be judicious here i do want to point out that this argument all the sap arguments are forfeited he did not raise any of these for failure to bring at the appellate and preserve at the appeal a and then on top of that there's an additional four for sure under three forty one h seven in terms of bringing new arguments in reply brief but to answer your honest question on the merits spoke in the street order and to represent his practice is that every prefix some point will go through his office and be reviewed and ultimately he has the final say so that is his position that he has the final say so whether he actually he did not recall whether he actually reviewed this brief in this case it could have been someone else but at the end of the day mr yoder is that it is the final decision maker on the forty in the weight of the structure is he under sap and specifically under two ten slash  qualifies under the act in that state of the states your honor yes the states are not to dodge the question yes but the plain language of the statute says state's attorney however the fact that sap worked for under the direction and control work for the state's attorney this is a you going to answer your honor's hypotheticals as i'm understanding that's why i want to be clear i understand it is a situation where sap is by itself and sap is not who has the authority under statute to bring the charge and has the duty to defend the charge in the appellate court is the state's attorney the state's attorney is the prosecuting official here so with your honest question of when the state's attorney's not involved so i would say your honor would is has been overturned and therefore there is no no longer this responsibility also to pick up with your honest question about what is judgement judgment is the appellate court decision that we cited the decision of p s l realty which says that there is a judgment this court has its own judgement which is separate and distinct from the judgment of conviction so these are two separate things that are going on here people ever says people versus sammy smith from the from the fifth district jeff smith which is the only mine of cases that supports the defendant position came after nichols and yet jeff smith does not cite through or considered nichols so it is an he cited nichols has his main precedent i believe that nichols had a problem that being that he didn't construe the plain language of the statute regarding the state's attorney being the only person in title to the feet when someone cites a statute or someone cites a case know again i do not have a conversation with mr yoder i don't know what his what his role is with this case i think the problem is not that that's the problem with us ignoring the forfeiture issue because the state was pretty forthright in saying if there really wasn't the relationship with the state's attorney the point rating would indicate that the you can't get the fifty dollars that that's correct i had to ask mr redfern what happened and again he said it's outside the record correct here's what happened he reviews everything he's ultimately respond it is office reviews are reading he's ultimately responsible so for this court to make a determination on that issue if we were to agree with you but there had to be involvement we would necessarily have to look outside of the record where if it was raised at the first instance either in the appellate court or in the p l way or whatever the situation was i'm sure in that particular instance there would have been made made some effort and actually if it was raised in the appellate court there obviously would have been something there where they would have tried to come up with something that they have a record on this and now we're left with there we go in their brief when they asked for or they could just in the court for the imposition of the fifty dollars fee he just said in pursuit of the statute we would like the fifty dollars fee there's absolutely nothing in their brief saying because mr yoder has assisted in the prosecution and defense of this case we asked i do have that act with me an additional provision in response his argument is a nothing here and shall be construed to abrogate or diminish the rights of states attorneys to prosecute appeals in any case the act itself uses the word prosecute it's an act it's a and something that you do doesn't say nothing diminishes the state charges right to have his name on the prairie clearly by the plain language of the statute the legislature intended for the state's attorney to be the one who prosecute or defense who brings the case to the  even given what was said here today if the ultimate responsibility of review was mr yoder that would be not enough in prosecuting the appeal i did so yes because it after all is the state's attorney paul crosshair who is the one that's piling  you know just to point the court to the strict construction actually i did want to mention that counsel is correct nichols did discuss strict construction what i was speaking about earlier regarding nichols interpretation of the strict construction  they never really been mentioning rule they never really say that it has to be construed in favor of mr nichols and that's why i think nichols has a problem i think that's nichols killie's heal because these were not in the common law they need to be strictly construed in favor of the defendant and nichols i would have expected if the court had interpreted the strict construction rule for nichols to have said something like construed in favor of mr nichols we find and go on with  conclusion from there but nichols never does that and so we're out nichols does mention rules or construction doesn't apply the rule and it seems like it's imperative that the rule be applied specifically in this case where the state and i don't know that the coun l responded to the argument that the state essentially is asking for a extension of the plain language of the statute that the plain language being a judge in favor of the accused meaning convictions were sustained that isn't what the statute says  and as i mentioned at the outset with the opening argument the relative rule going to strict instruction is that you would look at the plain language of the statute or the clear implication on the face of the statute and that doesn't support the state's position it's of course sentenced for that i don't have it in front of me but my my guess is somewhere in the record it talks about fines and fees that were given to him for share stories and document storage fees and things that were imposed in the trial court i don't know if he's paid that or not it is certainly i would guess has been given to him however when a defendant appeal something receives relief or that something the city attorney should have caught in the first place there seems to be something fundamentally flawed with also requiring a fifty dollars fee so