Docket No . 110765.



### IN THE SUPRE ME COURT OF THE STAT E OF ILLIN OIS

THE PEOPLE OF THE STA TE OF ILLINOIS, Appell ee, v. EARL LE E MARS HA

LL , A pp el l an t.
Opinion filed May 19, 2011.

JUSTICE KA

RMEIER deli

vered t he j udgm

en t of th e c our t, w i th op inion. Chi ef Jus t ice Kilbride and Jus t ices Fr eeman, Tho mas, G ar man, Bur ke, and T heis co ncur re d in t he judg ment a nd o pinion.

OPINI ON

T he iss ue pr es en t ed in

this case i s whether, unde

r section 5–4–3 of the Unifi ed Code of Corr ections (Cod e) (730 I LCS 5/5–4–3 ( West 20 08 ) ) , a t r ial c o ur t ha s t he au t ho r it y t o o r de ra d efe nd an t t o su bmit
a sa mple o f his d eo xyr ibo nu cle ic acid ( DNA) for for ensic ana lysis and indexing and to pay a $200 DNA anal ys is fee w her e t hat defend ant hasal rea dy su bm i tted a DN A sa m ple p urs ua nt to a pri or con vic ti on and has pai

d a correspondin

g anal ys is fee. Def endan t, Ear l L ee Ma r sha ll, pleaded guil

ty to fi rst de gr ee mur de rin t he cir cu it cou rt of Pe o r ia County. At sen

tenci ng, the trial

court im posed a t er m of

33 years’ impriso nment and speci fi ed that th ere “i s th

e j udgm en t f or c ost s an d ma ndatory asses sm

ents of DNA

fee a nd testin g.” The wr i tte n sent encing order directed defen dant to paya $2 00 D NA as sess ment-2- fee. On dir ec t ap pe al fo ll ow ing den i al of de f en da n t’s moti on to reconsider

se nt en ce , de fen da nt ar gu ed t ha t t he t r ia lcourt la cked
au t ho r it y t o o r de rhim t o su bmit a D NA sa mple o rpa y t he fee as his DNA was al ready on f

il e. The appel

la te court fou nd t hat defend ant had fo r feit ed t his is su e a nd t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t ’s o r de rwa s no t vo id because t he order was authorized un der section 5–4–3. 402 Ill. A pp. 3d 10 80 . We g

ra n ted de f en da n t’s peti ti on f or l ea v e to ap pe al. I ll. S. Ct. R. 31 5 (ef

f . Feb . 26, 201 0).

BACK GROUND Af ter defen dant was cha

rged with f

irst degree m

ur der in June 200 7, t he St at e move d fo r a n or der dire ct ing defend ant “to pro duce t he buccal st anda rd ” fo r t he pu rp os e o f DNA co mpar ison a nalysis. At a heari ng on that motion, the f

oll owing e xch ange occurred: “MR. GAST [Ass ista nt St at e’s At t or ney]: Jud ge, we ha ve a Motion f

or Samples. It’s my

understandi

ng that the la

b has fou nd so me bloo d sa mples t hat wo uld be available for t est ing wi th the d efenda nt ’s DN A, so t her efo re , w e’r e as king pur sua nt to Su

pr em e C our t Ru l e f or a sa m pl e to be taken f rom th e def en da n t. TH E C OU

RT : W e’ l l h ea r f rom th e def en da n t. MR. T ONER [Assistant Public Defe nder]: Judge, our unde rst anding i s th

at M r. Ma rs ha ll ’s DN A i s a l rea dy of record, so there would be

no reason to t ake any furt her DNA. TH E C OU

RT : M r. G ast, a n y kn owl ed ge of th at? MR. GAST : I do n’ t have any knowle dge of that ot her than –i s i t a COD IS [Combi

ned DNA Index Sy stem] sam ple ? MR. TO NER: Y eah .” The Stat e re i te ra

ted i ts req ue st f or a b uc ca l sa m pl e f rom de f en da n t, and t he co ur t gr ant ed t he mot ion. On January 17, 2008, t he p ar t ie s ap pea re d in co ur t and defendant’s counsel

ann ounced that an agreem

ent had b een reach

ed whe re by defend ant wo uld p lead g uilty as c har ged , a nd wo uld be
sente nc ed to i m prison men t f ora term capped at 33 years. Defend ant ple aded gu ilt y, t he co ur t acc ept ed t he plea and s ched uled a sent encing he ari ng. Th ereaf ter, defen dant fi le d a pro se m

oti on t o wit hd r aw his-3- gui l ty pl ea . A t a he ari ng on t he mot ion, t he co ur t hear d t est imony and
ar gument befo re denying t he mot ion. The pr ese nt ence invest igat ion r epo rt (P SI ) p re par ed fo r d efenda nt noted, inter al

ia , that his DNA

was “R egi stered.” Th e PSI further detail ed de f en da n t’s 20 02 gui l

ty pl ea to a f el on y tr a ffic o ffen se in W oodf ord C oun ty ca se No. 01–CF–65, his thr ee- year s ent ence , a nd noted: “He

was rec ei ve d a t the Ill i noi s D ep artm

en t of Corr ec ti ons on Jan uary 9, 2002. He was paroled out o n Novem ber 27, 2002. Th e defend ant wa s retu

rned to the De pa rtm en t of Co rr ec t io ns a s a pa r o le vi ol ator o n Au gu st 28 , 20 03

. He wa s d isc ha r ge d fr o m p arole o n October 16, 2003.” Th

e PSI als o r ev ea ls that on Decemb er 29, 2005, defend ant pl

eade d g ui l ty to a fel ony traffi c offense i n Tazewe l l Cou n ty
case No. 05 –C F–

26 4, a n d w as se n ten ce d to 24 mo nt hs’ pr oba t ion and ordered to se rve 18 0 d ays in the Taz ew el l Cou nty j ai l . His p rob ati

on was term i na ted un suc ces sf

ull y on Ja nua ry 8, 2008. As stated, at def endan t’s J une 23, 200 8, senten

ci ng h eari ng i n th i s ca se, the court im poseda 33-y

ear term of impriso nment a nd a mand at or y asses sment f orDNA testin

g, which $200 f

ee was i ncl uded i nthe written
se n ten ci n g order e n

tered b y th e c our t. OnJune 24, 200 8, defend ant fil ed, t hro ugh c ou nsel, a not he r moti on t o wit hd r aw his g uil

ty plea; a m

ot ion to reconsi der sentence claiming the 33- yea r ter m of i m pri sonm ent was exc essi

ve; and an
am ended moti on to re co nsider sent ence , r eite ra t ingthat t he sen tence
was exc ess i ve , b ut als o ar gu ing t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t ha d e rr ed in
re fusing t o ad mit ev ide nc e o f t he de ce de nt ’s men t al h ea lt h h i story. Defend ant la

ter file d a pro se sup plement al mot ion t o w ithd ra w t he gui l ty pl ea wh er ein he cla imed t ha t he wa s n o t gu ilt y and t hat he ple aded gu ilt y due to hi s f

ear of the real

kil le r. Following a

heari ng, t he tri al court deni

ed defe ndan t’s suppl em

ental motion to withdraw t he guil ty plea . At that same hea ring, t he co ur t also denied t he
am ended m ot ion to reconsi der sentence. Def endan t appealed. On app eal, defend ant argued for the f irst tim e that because h

e had pr ev io us ly

submitt ed a spe cimen of blo od , sa liva, o r t issue, t he cir cu it
cour t l ac ke d the s tatutor

y au thor i ty to orde r hi m to su bm i t an ot he r such sam ple , and t o pay the $ 20 0 D NA an alys is fe e, as pa r t o f his sentence in this case. The app el

l ate cou rt re j ec ted th i s a rgum en t,
co ncluding tha

t con si de ri ng the l an gua geof se cti on 5–4–3 and the f

act that t he l egi sl ature put in

pla ce a process to expunge DNA fro m the-4- database, “we c anno t agr ee w ith d efenda nt ’s r eadi n g of th e statu te that a court la cks the authority

to order a defendan

t t o give DNA and pay the $200 anal

ys is fee m ore t han once.” 402 Ill . App. 3d

at 1083. The pa n el also f oun d th e iss ue f orf ei te d and affir med t he cir cu it court ’s j udgme

nt. 402 Ill . App. 3d at 1083-84.

AN AL YSIS Sec ti on 5–4–3 of the Code p rovides, in essential part , as foll

ows: “§5–4–3. Pers ons c onv

i cted of , or foun d del i nqu en t for,
ce r t ain of f ense s or i n sti tut ional ized as sex

uall y dan gero us; specim ens; genetic marker grou ps. (a) Any pers on c onv ic ted o f, fo und g uilty und er t he Ju ve nile Cou

rt A ct of 1987 f or, or wh o rec ei ve d a di sp osi ti on of court sup ervi sion f

or, a qu alifying o ffens e o r a t t emp t o f a qua lif ying off ense, conv

icted o r foun d guil

ty of any offense cl assifi ed asa f el ony un de r Il l i noi s l aw , con vi cte d or f ou nd gui l ty of a ny offense r equ iring re gist ra t ion und er the Sex Off ender Re gi strati

on A ct, f oun d gu i l ty orgi ve n s upe rvi si on f orany offense cl assifi

ed as a f el ony un der the J uve ni l e Court Act of 1987, con

v i cte d or f oun d g ui l ty o f, un de rt he Ju ve nile CourtAct of 1987, any

off ense requi

rin g registrat ion un

der t he Se x Of f en der Reg i strat ion Act, o r insti tut ional ized as a
se xu ally dan gerous person under the Sexual ly Dangerous Per so ns Act, or co mm

itted as a sexu ally vi

olent person under t he Se x ual l y Vi ol en t Per so ns C o mmit men t Ac t sha ll, regardless of the sen

tence or disposi

tion i mposed, be

required to s ubm it sp ec imens o f blo o d, sa liva, o rt iss ue t o t he I llino is Dep ar t ment of S t at e Po lice in acco rd ance wit h t he pr ovisio ns of thi s Section ***. * * * ( j) An y pers on req

ui red b y sub section

(a) t o s ubm it spe cimens of blo od , sa liva, o r t issue t o t he I lli nois D epa rt ment of St at e P o lice fo ran alys is a nd ca t eg o r iza t io n int o ge ne t ic
ma rkergrou pi ng , i n a ddi ti on to an y o t he rdi sp o sit io n, pe na lt y, orfi ne i mposed, shal

l pa y a n anal ysi s fee of $200.” 730 ILCS 5/5–4 –3(a), ( j ) (We st 2008 ). As i s a pp aren t f rom i ts title, the prim

ary purpose of s ection 5–4–3-5- is t he creation of a c

rim in al DN A da tab as e of the ge ne ti c i de nti ti esof reci d iv ist off enders. See People

v. Garvi n , 219 Ill . 2d 104, 119 (20 06) ; People v. Rigsby , 405 Ill . App. 3d 91 6, 9 17 (2 01 0) . Pr

i or to his convicti on herein f

or firstdegre e m

urder, defen

dant had twi ce been convi cted of a f el ony tha t woul d re qui re h i m to prov idea DN A
sa mple an d to pay t he co rr esp ond ing an alys is fe e. T he r ec o r d r ev ea ls th at, at t he tim

e of hi s sentencin

g in this case , his DNA was “Regi stered” i n C ODIS. D ef

endan t there fore a rgues that the trial courter re d in re quir inghi m to subm

it an add itio nal DNA s ample and
or der inghi

m to pay a n addi tional $2 00 an al y sis f ee i n con n ec ti on wi th his pr es en

t c onvi ct ion. As in Rigsby , th e f un da men tal que sti on presented here i s whether se ct io n5–4–3 shoul d be read “ to requi re su bm i ss i on o f mult iple and dupl

ic ative DNA sa m plesan d pa y men t of addi tional anal ys is fees from an off ender wh o has al rea dy subm

itted DNA sa m plespur suan

t to a pr

i or con vi cti on and h as paid a
co rr esp ond inganal

y si s f ee.” Rigsby , 405 Ill . App. 3d at 917. Because t he que st ion is o ne o f sta t ut or y inter pr et at ion, our review is de novo

. People v. Williams , 239 Ill. 2d 5 03, 506 (20 11) ; People v. Beachem , 229 Il l . 2d 237 , 243 (2 008). The pr imary object ive of st at ut or y inter pr et at ion i s to a sc er t ain and gi ve ef f ect to the i

nten t of our l egi slature. Beachem , 229 Ill . 2d at 243. “T his inq ui ry ‘mu st alw ays begi n wi th the la nguage of the

statut e, w hich is the surest and m

ost relia ble i ndicator o f l

egi sl ative i n ten

t. ’ People v. Pullen , 192 Ill . 2d 36, 42 (2000). ” Id. We constru e t he stat ute as a who le and a fford t he langu age of t he st at ut e its plain and ordi na ry mean i ng. Id. Wh

ere that lan

guage i s clear

and unam

biguous, we mus t apply the statut e wi

thout further ai

ds o f s tatutory
constructi on. Williams , 239 Ill . 2d at 506. However, if

the statut e i s capabl

e of bei ng u nd ers tood by
r ea so na bly

well-infor med pe rso ns i

n two ormor e differe nt ways, t he sta tute will be deem ed am bi guous. Solon v. Midwest

Medical Records Ass’ n , 236 Il l . 2d 433 , 440 (2 010); Landis v. Marc Realt y, L.L .C. , 235 Il l . 2d 1, 1 1 (2009) . If the statute is am bi guous, t he court may consider ext rinsic aids of c ons t ru ct ion in ord er t o d iscer n t he l egi slati ve i nten t. Id. W e c on str

ue th e statu te t o a void re nder ing any part of it m eani ngl ess or super fl

uous. Solon , 2 36 I ll. 2d a t 440 -4 1. We do not dep art f

ro m t he pla in st at ut o ry lang ua ge by r ea din g in t o it exceptions, lim

itat ions, or co ndit ions t hat co nfli ct wit h t he expresse d-6- i n ten t. Id. at 441. No r do we vi ew words and ph

rases i n i solati on, but consider t hem in l i gh

t of other relev

ant provis ions

of the statute. Beachem , 229 Ill . 2d at 243. We may al so conside

r the consequence s t hat would resul

t from construi ng th e statute on

e way or the othe

r. Landis , 235 Ill . 2d at 12. In d oing so, we presu me tha t the legi slature did not i nten d ab surd , i

nc onven i en t, or unj ust con seq

uen ces

. Id. W i th these pri nci ple s i n m in d, we exam

in e the statut e at is sue. The I llino is Ap

pel l ate Court h

as re peated l y addre sse d the

pre s ent
co nt ent ion, i.e. , t hat t aking a DNA s ample and asse ssing t he an alys is fee in a p rior ca se

ba rs the taki ng of a new sa mpl e and attendant f

ee in a su bs eque nt ca se. In People v. Evangelis ta , 393 Ill . App. 3d 395, 39 9 (2 009 ), t he App ellate Co ur t , Fir st Dist rict , S eco nd Division, considered

a ch al l en ge to t he DNA analy

sis f ee in l ight of t he St ate ’s
con ce ss i on of err or

. “Alt hou

gh weha ve f oun d n o ca se di rectl y on poi n t, the obvi ous pur pos e of the sta tute i s to c ol l ec t f

rom a convi cted defen dant a DNA

prof i l e to be s tored i n a datab ase . [Ci

tation .] Once
a defen dant has s ubm itted a DNA sam

ple , requiri

ng addi tional sam ple s wo uld serve n

o purpo se.” Id. Ag re ei

ng wi th the parties, the pan

el vacated t he ana lysis fee. In People v. Willis , 40 2 I ll. App. 3d 47, 61 (2 010 ), t he Fifth D ivisi

on r elied o n Evangelis ta in sim ilarly vacat ing
a r ep et it ive an alys is fee, app ar ent ly witho ut a co nces sion by the Stat e. The reaf ter, t he Ap pe llat e C o ur t , T hir d D ist r ict , in t his case noted that Evangelista wa s b as ed on th e Sta te’ s c onc es si

on of err oran d d id not expressl y a nal yze the l anguage of

section 5–4–3. 402 Il

l. A pp. 3d at 108 3. After perfor mi

ng such an an

aly sis, t he court concl

uded that where, inter al

ia , the statut e used m

andatory language i

n notin g that
an y pe rs on c onv

i cte d of a qu alify ing o ffense “shall” pa y the fee, and did not pr ovid e t hat a co nvicte d felo n sho uld be exc use d fro m the stat ut e’s ma

ndates i f h is DNA was al rea dy i n th e data base , “weca

nn ot agree wi th de f en da n t’s re ad i n g of th e statu te t hat a co ur t lacks t he
au th ori ty to order a defendan

t t o give DNA an d pay t he $2 00 an alys is fee m ore t han once.” Id. In People v

. Grayer , 403 I ll . App. 3d 79 7 (2010) , t he Fi rst Distr i ct, Sec ond Div

is ion, f oll owed the h

old i ng of the a ppel l ate court in this case, expan

din g on the ide a of the statute’s sil en ce re gar ding the question at han

d. “Here, defend ant is

correct that t he ‘st at ut e sa ys not hing abo ut re quir ing

a fe e e ac h t ime a de fen da nt is co nvict ed o f a-7- felony in this St at e. ’ Ho weve r, we a lso a gr ee w ith t he Marshal l cou rt th at n othi n g i n th e statu tory l an gu ag e l i m i ts the taki ng of DN A sa m plesort he as se ss men t o f t he an alys is fee to a si ngle i nstance.” Grayer , 403 Ill . App. 3d at 801. De sp i te t he legislat ur e being “ ke en l y aw are of re cidivism,” and willi

ng to manifest it s co ncer n in sta t ut es, “the legislature did not addr ess t he issue o f succ essive q ualifyi ng co nvictio ns in sect ion 5 –4– 3, eithe r by
ex pr es sly au th ori zi n g or ex pr es sl y ex ce pti n g th e taki ng o f a sec ond DNA s am pleo r a sses sment of a sec ond analysis fee up on a sec ond qualif yi ng conv iction.” Id. Howev er, in People v. Rigsby , 405 Il l. A pp. 3d 9 16 ( 201 0) , t he Fi rst Div is ion, wh il e al so noting the statut e’ s s ile nce on the issue, ca me to t he o pp o sit e c o nc lus io n a s t he co ur t s in t his c as e a nd in Grayer by ret ur ning t o t he t enet s o f sta t ut or y inter pr et at ion. “S ec ti on 5–4 –3 o f the st at ut e is silent and s ays no t hi n g about requiri

ng off enders to provideaddi

tional DNA sam

ple s upon ev er y qu alifying co nvic t io n o rr eq uir in g p ay men t of addi ti o nal DNA an

al ys is fees from an off ender wh o has al ready com pl i ed wi th th e statu

tory re qui re men ts and has
sam ple s of his DNA on f

il e in t he po lice dat abas e. The legisl atu re’s si l en ceon these i ssues createsan ambiguit y in the sta tute t ha t pe rmit s u s t o lo o k b eyo nd it s t ext t o r eso lve the
am bi gui ty.” Rigsby , 405 Ill . App. 3d at 917-18 (citi

ng People
v. Bo mar , 405 I ll . App. 3d 13 9, 153 ( 2010) ( McDade, J. , co ncur ring in par t and d issenting i n part ) (t he legi slature ’s sile nce on the question creates an amb igu it y in

the statut e that perm i ts thi s court to l ook to extri ns i c ai ds of constructi on)). It is co mmonly reco gnized t hat co ur t s will give subst ant ial weight and defer ence t o a n inter pr et at ion o f an ambiguo us s t at ut e by the agency charged wi th the adm i nistration an

d en f orc em en t of t he statut e. Illinois Consolidated Telephone Co. v. Illino is Com merce Comm’n , 95 Ill . 2d 142, 152 (1983). An agency ’s i

nterpretat io n expresse s ani

nf orm ed opi ni on on l eg i sl ati ve i nte nt, base d up on expertise and ex

perien ce. Abrahamson v. Illinois Depa rtmen t of Professional

Regulation , 153 Ill . 2d 76, 98 (1992). Here, th e statu te provides tha t “ [a] ge nc i esde si

gnate d by the Il l i noi s D ep artm

en t of Sta te Police and the Ill

in ois Departm

ent of State Po li

ce” are i n ch arge of “ the col l ec ti on or an al y sis of DNA, or both, o f an

off ender’s bl ood,-8- sal iv a, and tis sue sam

ple s .” 730 IL CS 5/5 –4–3( d–6) (W est 200 8). Theref ore, in Rigsby , 405 Ill . App. 3d at 918, th e c our t l ooke d to ti

tl e 20 of the Adm

in is trat iv e Code, whi ch gui

des those agenci

es in implementing section 5–4–3, as t he best aid in

in terpret in g the statut e. As we be lieve this a nalysis in Rigsby to be wel l-rea soned, we reproduce it here:

“In Illinois, D NA is co llecte d fro m qualifyi ng offend er s by de ten ti on fac ilit ies o rby ce r t ain de sig na t ed st at e, lo ca l, or pri v ate agencies

. 730 ILCS 5/5–4 –3(d–5), (d–6 ) (We st 2008 ). Under se cti on 128 5. 30 o f Title 2 0 o f the Adm in is trat iv e Code,
*** faci li ties an d agenci es responsi

ble for coll

ec t ing DNA
sam ple s are designated bas ed o n the sta tutory pre su m ption that the quali fy

in g offender has n

ot previousl

y ha d a sa mple taken or collected: ‘ If the qualif ying off end er has not prev iously

had a sample taken ’ and i s servi ng a t er m o f i nc arc era ti on in a f ac i l i ty un der the c on

trol of th e c oun

ty she riff or is being t ra nsferr ed t o a not her st at e t o s er ve t he sentence , the designated

agency is the sheri ff ’s off ic e; ‘ [i]f the qua lifyingoff

ender has not previous ly had a sample taken ’ and is tr ansfer re d t o a facility unde r t he co nt r o l of t he Dep ar t ment of C orre ct ions t o s er ve a t er m of incar cer at ion, t he designated

ag en cy i s th e D ep artm

en t of Co rr ect ions; ‘ [i]f the qualifying of

fender ha s not previously h ad a samp le taken ’ and is tr ansfer re d t o a facility unde r t he con trol of t he Dep ar t ment of

Ju v en i l e J us ti ce to serv e a

term of inc ar cer at ion, t he de signat ed a genc y is the D epa rt ment o f Ju ve nile Just ice; ‘ [i]

f th e q ua li

fyi ng off ende r has not previo usly

had a sample collect

ed ’ and is tr ansfer re d t o t he Dep ar t ment of Co rr ect ions to be i nsti tut iona li zed as a s ex ua lly dangerous pe rs on

or instit ut ionalized as a per so n fou ndgui l ty butmen tal l y i l l of a sexual off ense or an attempted sex ual off ense, the de si gnate d age nc

y i s th e D ep artm

en t of Corr ections; ‘ [i]f

the qualifyingoffender has n ot previously had a sample collected ’ and i s or dered co mm

itted as a
se xu ally violen t person, t he de si gnat ed a genc y is the Dep ar t ment of Human

Services; and ‘ [i]f

the qualifying off ender has not previously had a sample collected ’ a nd is
ser vinga s en t en ce bu t no t ph ys ic ally i ncar cer at ed, t he-9- designated

agency is the sup er vi sin

g agency such

as a prob ati on off ic e. (Emphas is

added. ) 20 I ll . Adm . Code §§1285.30(c)(1) through (c)(6), am ended at 31 Ill . Reg. 9249, 9254-55, eff

. June 12, 2007. In lightof the i

talicized statut ory language quoted above, it i s rea son

ab l e to assum

e that, in practice, a des i gn ate d f ac i l i ty
orag en cy ch arge d w i th ad m i n i ste ri n g th e statu te w ou l d n

ot i n te rpret it to require subm is si on of m

ulti ple and dupl ic at iv e DN Asa mp le s f

rom an of

fen der who has al

ready s ubm itted
sam ple s pu rsua n t to a p r io r conviction. See Bomar , 40 5 I ll. App. 3d a t 153 -5 4 ( McD ade , J. , c onc ur ring in p ar t and dissent ingin

part ); see also Evangelis ta , 393 I ll . App. 3d at 399 (‘Once a de f

en dant has s

ubm itted a DNA sam

ple , requi ri ng a ddi tion al sam pl es woul d serve

no pur pose’ ). A one-tim e subm is si on in to the police DNA da t ab as e is sufficient to satisf

y the purpose of the statut e in creating a database of the genetic iden tities of recidi

vi st cri mi nal offen ders, because

once an off

ender’s DNA da t a is st o r ed in t he database, it remains

there unless and u nt il

the o ff ender’s
co nvictio n is reve rse d bas ed o n a findingof actual i nnocen ce orhe i s p ard

one d b as ed

on a f i nd i ng of actual i nnocen ce. 730 ILCS 5/5–4

–3(f –1) (W est 200 8). Moreov er, sin

ce the analy

sis f ee is int ende d t o c ove r t he
costs of t he DN A analysis, a nd o nly one an alys is is ne ces sary per qu alifying o ffen de r , t he n by e xt en sio n o nly one anal ys is fee is ne ce ss ar y as well. See Bomar , 405 Ill . App. 3d at 154 (McDade, J., co ncur ring in pa rt and d issent ing i n pa rt); People
v. Willis , 402 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 47 , 6 1, 934 N.E.2d 4 87 (20 10). No t ab ly, when the legisl

atur e has in

tended for a fee t o be im posedon a per -c onvict ion bas is rat her t han a p er -d efenda nt basi s, it ha s s aid so. See, e.g. , 730 ILCS 125/17 (West 2008) (‘T he cou nty sh al l be en ti tl ed to a $ 10 f eef or ea ch con vi cti on oro r de ro f su pe rvisio n fo ra c r imi na l v i ola tion *** ’ ).” Rigsby , 405 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 918-19. We agr ee w ith t he Rigsbyco ur t t hat t he r egu latio ns implementing
se cti on 5– 4–3 sh ow a

n i n ten t to require a s in

gle speci me n of D NA be taken from each qual if ie d pe rs on t o c re at e a p ro fil

e fo r e nt ry into t he DNA dat abas e mainta ined by

t he I lli nois D epa rt ment of State Po li ce,-10- rathert han an int ent to req ui re s ubm i ss i on of multiple a nd du plicat ive DNA sa mple s fr o m an o ffen de rwh o ha s a lr e ady subm itted sam ple s pur sua nt t o a pr ior co nvi ction. As ea r lier st at ed , t he sile nc e o n t his que sti on in the statut ory language createsan amb igu it y pe rmit t ing t his courtt o lo ok t o e xt rinsic aids of c ons t ru ct ion, and w e must give substantial

we i gh t an d de f ere nc e to a n i nte rpreta ti on of an am bi guous sta tute by the ag en

cy ch arg ed wi th th e adm i ni stra ti on and e nfor cement of t he st at ut e. Acco rd ingly, we d et er mine that t he statut ory language, “Any person *** convi

cted or f oun d gu i l ty of any off ense cl assifi ed as
a f el on y under Illinois law * ** s hall, re gar dless o f the sent enc e o r di sp osi ti on i m pos ed , b e req

ui re d to submit s pec imensof bl ood, sal iv a, orti ss ueto the Ill i noi s D ep artm

en t of Stat e Police i

n ac corda n ce wi th t he prov i si ons of thi s S ec ti on, ” w asmea

nt to i de nti f y a p opul ati on wh os e DNA mus

t be present i

n the database . 730 ILCS 5/5–4–3(a) (West 200 8 ). Si

m i l arl y , th e $ 200

an al y sis f eeset f orth i n s ec ti on 5–4–3 ( j) “sh all” be pa id o nly when the act ual ext ra ct ion, analysis and fi li ng of a quali

fi ed offender’s DNA

occur s. We fi nd support for this i

nterpretat ion of

sec t ion 5–4 –3 by
co mpar ing

a sta tute si m i l arl y de si gn ed to co l l ec t b i ol ogi

ca l da ta f rom ce r t ain offen

ders. Sect ion 5–5–3(g) provides, in pertinen t part , as foll ows:

“ Whenever

a d ef en da nt i s c onv i cte d of an o ff ense un der Sec t ions 11–14, 11–1 5, 1 1–15.1, 11–16, 11–17, 11–18, 11–18.1, 11–19, 11–19.1, 11–19.2, 12–13, 12–14, 12–14.1, 12–15, or 12–16 o f the C

rim in al Code of 1961, t he de fendant sha ll undergo medi

cal testing to determin

e wh et her t he defend ant has an

y s exual ly transm itted disea se, including a test f orin fection with h

uma n i mm unodefi ci ency vi rus (HIV) or any ot her i de nti f i ed ca us ati ve ag en t of acqui red im mun odefici ency synd r o me (AIDS).” (Emphas is added.) 730 ILCS 5/5–5–3(g) (We st 2008 ). While the p l ai

n l anguag e of

section 5–5–3 statesthat “ [w]henev er,” i.e. , each an

d every tim e, a de fendan t commi

ts the enum

erated offens es he

shal l be tested f or, inter al

ia , HIV, section 5–4–3, b y con tra st, does not co ntain

this cl ear and si

mpl e di rect iv e that spe cimens be sub

mi tt ed, anal yzed and categorized

i n to geneti c m

arker groupings “w hene ver” a qu al i f i ed of f ender is con

vi cted. Thus, we concl ude that section 5–4–3 ide ntif ie s a population whose DNA must-11- be pr es en t in t he da t ab as e, an d a cc o r din gly the statutory

re qui re men ts
areful fi ll ed once a s in

gle DNA sam

ple from each m em ber of that population i

s regi stered. Furth er, we do no t be lieve t he “lo o ph o le” an alys is set f orth by the appe l l ate cour t below dictates a dif f eren t re su l t. Rigsby , 405 Ill . App. 3d at 919. That co urt po si

ted that if a qual

if ie d off ender was required to su bmit o nly o ne DN A sa mple , a s ce na r io could occur whi ch wo uld
r es ult in that o ffen de rfailing t o ha ve an y DN A sa mple o n file

. 40 2 I ll. App. 3d a t 108 3. F orex amp le, an o ffen de ris co nvicte d o f a qu alify ing offense and a sam

ple of his DNA

i s coll ected; the off

ender i s l ater
co nv icted of

a s ec ond

qua l i f y i ng of f en se , but th

i s ti me, n o DN A
sa mple i s c ol l ec ted

be ca us e a sa m ple i s a l rea dy on fi le; the offender’s fi rst co nvic t io n is r ev er se d a nd his DNA sample is exp unge d pu rsu ant to se ct io n 5– 4– 3( f– 1) (73 0 ILC S 5/5– 4–3(f –1) (W est 200 8)),
re sult ingin the o ffender having no DN A sa mple o n file even though he has a va l i d c onv i cti on f ora qualif

yi ng off ense. 402 Il

l. A pp. 3d at 1083. “We do n

ot read the statut e as providin

g such a l oophole. We inter pr et t he statut e as requi rin g that a sin

gle DNA sa mple
r ema in in t he d at aba se fo r e ac h pe rs o n co nvict ed o f a qua lif ying offens e. Thi s m

eans that if an

off ender’s previous sa mple was expun

ge d for what ever re aso n, a subs equ ent
con vi cti on wo uld na t ur ally

requi re a new sample be t ake n and t his wou l d b e s uf f i ci en t f or ma in tenance of

the DNA database.” Rigsby , 405 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 919-20. A thoro ugh r ea din g o f se ct io n 5 –4 –3 no t o nly confi rms thi s vi ew, b ut a ll evi ates any concern that a loophole could ex is t all owing a qualif ie d offend er to e sc ap e DNA regi stry . F i rs t, un de r s ec ti on 5–4–3(f–1), the onl

y c ircum stancesunder

whi ch a DNA record may be ex punged are:

“Up on re ce ipt o f no t ificat ion o f a re ve rs al of a c onv i cti on based on a ct ual innoc ence , o r o f the gr ant ing of a pardon pur sua nt t o S ect ion 12 o f A r t icle V o f t he I llino is Co nst itu t ion, if

that pardo n docum

ent specifi

cally states that t he re ason f

or t he pardon i s the actual i nnocen ce of an in div idua l who se D NA r eco rd has be en st or ed in t he Sta te or nationa l DN A id en t ifica t io n ind ex in a cc o r da nc e w it h t his Sec ti on by t he I llino is Departmen

t o f State Poli ce ***.” 7301 This sub section has b een revised severa l times since the 20 08 ver sion of the st at ut e at iss ue in t his ca se t o p rovid e a more efficient a nd inclusive collection of DNA samples, and now provides:

“N otwiths ta nding

o ther p rovis ions of this Section, any per son inca rc era ted in a fa cility of t he Illinois Depa rt ment of Cor rect ions or the Illi noi s De pa r tme nt o f Juve

ni le Justice on or afte r Aug ust 22, 2002, whethe

r for a term of years , nat ura l li fe , or a sent ence of death, who ha s not yetsu bmit ted a sampl e o f blo od, saliv a, or tissue shall be req uired to subm it a sp ecimen *** pr ior to hi s or her fi nal dis cha rg e, or re

lease on paro le or m and ato ry supe

rvi se d re lease , as a condition of his or her pa role or mandat ory su pervis ed release, or within 6 months from [August 13 , 20 09 (t he effective date of Public Act 96– 426 )], whichever is sooner . P ersons incar cera ted on or af ter [Aug ust13, 200 9 (t he effectivedate of Pub lic Act 96–4 26)] s hall be req uir ed tosubmit a sample within 45 da ys of inca rcer at ion, or pr ior to hi s or he

r fi nal d is ch arg e , or re le

ase on paro le or man da tory su per vis ed

releas e, as a condit ion

of his or her paro le

or man da tory superv ise d rele ase, w

hi che ve r is soo ne r. These spec im en s shall be pla ced into the Sta te or nationa l DNA data bas e, to be used in accordance with other provisions of this Sec tio n, by the Il li no is State Police .” Pub. Act 96–426 (eff. A ug. 13, 2009).
-12- ILCS 5/5–4

–3(f –1) (W est 200 8). Ad di t io na lly, sub section

(a) provides th

at “[n]otwithstandi

ng other pr ovisio ns of

thi s S ec ti on, an

y pe rs on incarc er at ed in a fac ili

t y of t he Ill i noi s D ep artm

en t of Corr ec ti ons on or after August 22, 20 02 sha ll be required to subm

it a speci me n o f blo o d, sa liva, o rt iss ue pr io rt o his
o rher f i na l di sch arge or re l eas e on p arol e or m andatory supe rv ise d releas e.” 730 IL CS 5/5 –4–3( a) (We st 2008). This provi si on assures that even t hos e o ffender s ident ifi ed in Marshal

l whose fi

rst DNA
sa mple is expu nged due t o a ct ual innoc ence wo uld, if i mpriso ne d at t he t ime of exp unge ment fo r a subs equ ent qua lif ying offense, be required to subm it a ne wsa m pl e p rior to t he irr ele as e f

r o m cu st o dy. 1 See al so 730 ILCS 5/5–5– 4(b) (West 200 8) (Co de s ect ion p ro viding that t ho se de fen da nt s w ho ha ve be en fo un d “ fac t ua lly innoce nt ,” and whose con

vi cti ons are ac cor din gly e xpunge d, wil

l h ave thei r seal ed records av

ai l ab l e to t he co ur t “for t he pu rp os e o f sent encing for any sub seq uen t fe l ony ”). Furth er, se ct io n 5– 4– 3, aft er list ing t he q ua lify in g o ffenses a nd-13- conditions requiri

ng subm issi on of DNA specim

ens, stat es: “( a–5) An

y pe rson who was otherwis e convi cted o f o r recei ved a dis positi on of court supervisi on for any

ot her offense und er t he C rimina l Co de o f 1961 o r w ho w as fo und gui l ty o rgiv en su pe rvisio n fo rsu ch a v io lation un der t he Juven il e Court Act o f 1987, may, regardless of the sentence imposed, be requi red by a n order of the court t

o submit specimens of

b l ood, sa l i v a, or tiss ue to t he I llino is Dep ar t ment of St at e Po lice in a ccord an ce wit h t he pr o visio ns o f t his Secti on.”(Em phasi s ad ded.) 7 30 IL CS 5/5–4–3 (a–5) ( West 2008)

. T his section thus gives the trial cour t disc reti on, i

n s i tua ti ons not ot her wise c ove re d by

t he st at ut e, t o o rd er a de fendant ’s DN A to be taken and e nt er ed int o t he r egist ry. T hus, for example, a de fendant whose origi

nal DNA sample w as e xpung ed, re gar dless o f whet her he
was in custody, on pr obati on, or under court su perv i sion f or a subs equ ent convi

ction, could b e ordered by the c ourt to subm it a ne w sam ple

. Indeed, t he s tatut e i s compreh ensi ve i n providin

g for other pot entia li tieswhich might pr event a r equ ired DNA s ample fro m being obtaine d , anal

yzed an d in dexed. See 730 I LCS 5/5–4–3( i)(2) (West 2008) (“ In

the even t tha t a p ers on’ s D

NA sa m ple i s n ot ad eq ua te f or any rea son, th e p ers on s

ha l l prov i dean othe r DN A sa m ple f or anal y si s.”). Fi

nal ly , in what has b een ref

erredto as a “f

ai ls afe” pro vi sion, section 5–4–3(l) stat es: “The fa ilur e o f a p er so n t o pr o vide a s pe cimen , o r o f any pe rs on or agency

to coll ect a speci

me n, wi thin the 45 day pe riod sha ll in

n o wa y al ter th e ob l i ga

ti on of th e p er son

to
su bmit such s

peci me n, or the a ut ho r it y o f t he I llino is Dep ar t ment of Stat e Police or perso ns des ignat ed by t he Depa rt ment to col

l ec t the sp ec i men , or the a

uthori ty of th e I llino is Departmen

t o f State Poli ce to accept, an alyz e and maint ain the speci

me n or to ma

in tain or upload results of ge ne t ic mark

er g roup i ng an al y sis i nf orm ati on i nto a State or na tion al datab ase .” 730ILCS 5/5–4 –3(l ) (We st 2008 ). Ac co r di ng ly, we are confi dent that the DNA of an

ind ividua l wh ich is
r equi red by the sta tute to b e on

f i l e w i l l , th

roug h s ome m eth odse t-14- for t h t her ein, be conti

nuousl y m ai ntain ed i n the database

. Moreov er, we find t ha t wh ile it is

logical to concl ude that t he legislat ur e’s int ent in creating s ection 5–4–3 was to bui ld a DNA databas e wi

t h a s co mpre hensive a populati on of qu al ifying o ffen de r s a s p o ss ible, it is il logical to con cl ude th at th e statu te re quir es d uplicat ive samples a nd fees. Giv en this fi ndi ng, we r eject t he no t io n me nt io ne d in Grayer , 403 I ll. A pp . 3d at 7 98 , that t he desi

re to have fres

h sam ple s of DNA jus tif ie s re quir ing t he su

bm i ss i on of mul tiple and dupl

ic ative sam ple s f rom an of f en der w h o h as al re ad y sa ti sf i ed th e statu te by submitt ing DNA sam ple s pur suan

t to a pr i or con vi cti on. “ Sam pl esof DNA can
rem ai n v i ab l e f orthousands of

yea rsi f mai n tai n ed un der a pp rop riate conditions. See P. Tracy

& V. Morgan , Big Brother and His Science Kit: DNA Databa ses for 21st Cent uryCrime Contro l? , 90 J. Crim. L. & Crim in ology 635, 673 n .105 (2000).” Rigsby , 405 I ll . App. 3d at 92 0. T he r e is therefore no practical need f or mul tiple sam ple s, a fac t whi ch is evinced in this ca se by a let t er fro m the I lli

nois D epa rt ment of Stat e Police to defense c ounsel . The l et t er ind ica t es t ha t wh ile defend ant was convi

cted of quali

fy in g fel onie s i n both 2002 an

d 2005: “Th e Il l i noi s State Pol

i ce DN A In dex i ng Lab oratory

haso ne sa mple
on file. T his s amp le was coll

ected by Vandal ia Correctional

Cente r on Novem ber 19, 2002 and recei

ved at our l ab oratory

on Novem

ber 20, 2 00 2.” Having al

ready obt ained, analy

zed and included defendant’s DNA in the database i

n 2002, there was no purpo se in repeat in g these act ions i n 20 05, an

d there wassi

m i l arl y no pur pose f or the trial

court in the case at bar to or der another sam ple to be taken an

d anal yzed. Fin ally, we reject the St ate’s ar gu men t t ha t de fen da nt he r ein forfe ited this issu e by faili

ng t o r aise it in a po st sent encing mo t ion. Defendant’s c on

ten ti on on appe al i s th at th e tr i al cou rt e x ce eded

i ts statutory authorit y in ord er ing him to pay t he DN A analysis fee and that t heref

ore t he order is v

oid. A ch alle nge to an alle ged

void order is not sub j ect to forf

ei ture. Rigsby , 405 Ill . App. 3d at 920 (c iting People v. Arna , 168 Ill . 2d 107, 113 ( 1 995) (a sentence wh ic h does not conform to a statut ory requi

remen t is v oid an d a revi ewi ng c ourt ha s the authority to correct i

t at any tim e)).

CONCLUSION-15- Based upo n t he foregoin

g, we determi

ne that section 5–4–3 authorizesa tr

i al cou rt to order t he taki

ng, ana lysis a nd in de xing o f a qua lif ying offende r’s DNA, and t he pa yment o f t he an alys is fe e o nly wh eret hat defend ant i s n

ot currently

registered in the DN

A database

. We there f ore reverse the appel

la te court ’s j udgme

nt, and vaca

te that porti on of the trial

court ’s order requiri

ng def enda nt to subm

it an addi tional DNA s ample and re quir inghi m to p ay the $200 DNA anal ysi s fee. We af

fi rm def endant’s conviction in

all ot her respects.
Appel la te court judgm

ent reversed; ci rc ui t cou rt j udgm en t v ac ate d i

n pa rt a n d a f f i rm ed i n pa rt.