does have jurisdiction to deal with this late collection costs are associated with criminal judgment section one twenty four a cash five states as much that cost are part of the criminal judgment to be taxed at the time  now after a defendant who had failed to pay a fine and probation his lawyer laughs and he gets a civil what would you do then that's a very good question i think it would might depend on how the civil judgment is arrived at did the defendant get notice an opportunity to be heard well we've entered that is kind of the problem states warriors coming in being paid by the government to argue about whether a defendant was fines and fees or unpaid can be taxed with collection constantly now i question whether in the first instance the state should be spending money that way but because he's not entitled to representation on civil rights i would presume so i'm not real sure because our statute prevents us from representing individuals who don't have there was imposing post judgment interest on judgment interest and that is collateral because it's not part of the judgment but how is this part of the judgment because it's a cost as oppos result of the initial imposition because if you have paid it in a timely fashion he would never have lost us which i think is just perceptions point right and the costs aren't even mandatory in that sense  it seems to me the the other part of the problem is that there really isn't a judgment for these late collection fees to begin with they are sest by the court that there's no associated judgment to that because the county hasn't moved forward to do  play right center and to go back a little bit the statute doesn't appear to presuppose an instance where the judgment being attempted that they're attempting to collect is currently on feel so then you've got a problem with whether or so here you've sort of got a variant of the same problem it is the same judgement that they're trying to collect they're just using a slightly different method of doing so is there a price they i assume at this point just the  serious trial court attempting to go after the surrogate clerk not as an agent of the court but as a representative of the county and a representative of the court system says you owe us late some judges in champaign county i've looked up records where the judge signs that sentencing expanded record and file stamps in this case it was just kind of stuck in the the clerk cannot of sas any great collection fees late fees or collection fees until after that six month period passes i'm sure the statute stands for that it depending on how you read the statute and it would be mr warren's position that if there isn't period is passed do you think that a court that does have authority under the statute to assess late reply don't think they do under this particular statute based upon how it's worded there may be other statutes where they might be able to do that section point nine three i can't remember the exact that the legislature would have wanted if a court saw fit to give somebody time to pay that late fees and question you should not be imposed at that point or maybe they didn't think it through the whole way and they didn't say exactly and it was just and i don't necessary not arguing that there were wired to what i am saying is that the unique fact and circumstance of the problem here is that the clerk didn't assess these fees in the not saying this is how we're doing of course we're going to look at this issue but i think you could make the argument that this is not part of a criminal charge and i'm sure that's exactly the argument the states might make any argument i'm making here is that i think it is part of turmoil judgment because on time within the terms of the payment plan that he was that he was given so therefore it may be a situation where the legislative intent here is to refrain from imposing late fees on defendants to interpret this as expressing legislative intent to somehow exempt entirely any defendant who has been in fact given extra time to pay any late fees at all even with the benefit of that actually time this court will be sensitive to the need to give effect to all the words in that sack in the statute and the wording that says unless the court order him to play this implemented the state is not asking this court to disregard that entirely merely to give it a dition to extradite expended were not considered costs in the criminal judgment they have actually put that in the statute or to overrule that interpretation so it extensively read section one twenty four or a dash five to so therefore it must be part of the judgment and that's why i cited this supplemental authority this court allowed in general motors versus papiss case recently decided by the supreme court of illinois in their case they cited to the sears holdings case which is a over rule in general motors and in that case they have focused on the fact that adding jasmine interests altered issues on appeal by increasing the amount of judges well the supreme court disagreed with that they didn't find that it was part of the judgment and they didn't find it interfered with really you know so it was something in which a situation in which the supreme court recognized the circuit court had jurisdiction to add the judgment interests of course in that case it was a situation in which the judgment itself involved interests it was interests on a higher tax refunds but putting aside the fact that the judgment itself represent an interest that was owed by the court of the collector in that case the  i think by the time they ruled on the motion to reconsider sentence had been pending for so long that they think that if they did you know if they didn't raise that issue it's not a it's not a necessity that that these late fees will be imposed only after statute deals with attaching interest on interest you're getting at different things and interest won't be collateral to that judgment because it would not necessarily part of the judgment interest deals with the time value of money as opposed to collecting the seven how you deal with collecting attorneys fees or under general civil litigation you can file a motion to collect deposition costs and i think the reason that those kinds of costs are dealt with the way they are is because they're not necessarily set stuff they do need to be limited and the problem in costs associated with a criminal punishment is those are pretty much set costs and you know the court just takes off the amounts designed to do for the state's attorney to actually like this piece now that the state here it appears to be arguing that those are also automatic and the way i read five ninety three the state's attorney does have to do something like this fisa search just sets three because the state's attorney or somebody the state's attorney hires to do this is the one who's going to actually have to set these for hearing get get the get it collected and i took the steps necessary cement some type of