2014 I LApp (3d) 120552 Opinion filed J anuar

y 16, 2014 Modified Upon De nial of Rehea ringFe bruar

y 11, 2014

I N THE APPEL LATE COURT OF I L L I NOI S THI RD DI STRI CT A.D., 2014 THE PEOPL E OF THE STATE OF I L L I NOI S, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. ROBERT D. H UNTER, Def endant- Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appea l from the Circuit Court of the Twe lfth J udicial Circuit Wil l County , I llinois Appea l No. 3-12-0552 No. 11-CF- 2264 Honora ble Daniel J. Roz ak, J udg e Presiding

. J USTI CE WR I GHT de livered the judgme nt of the cour t, with opinion. J ustices Carter

and O’ Br ien conc urre d in the judgme nt, and opinion.

OP INION ¶ 1 Def

endant, Rober

t D. Hunter, w as convic ted of a g g rava ted batter y (720 I L CS 5/ 12- 3.05(c) (West 2010)) and se ntence d to six y ear s’ imprisonment. Defe ndant appe als his sentence by reque sting this court to adjust the amount of c erta in monetary charg es which the court purportedly

order ed def

endant to pay

as par t of his sentence followingconviction. We aff irm the judgme nt and re mand with direc tions. ¶ 2 FACTS ¶ 3 Duringthe sentenc ing he aringconducte d J une 6, 2012, neither party addre ssed ordiscussed the statutory costs, fee s, and asse ssments to be order ed by the trial cour

t. Consequently , when se ntencingdefe ndant for the offe nse of a g gravated batter y , the cour

t did not addre ss or articulate any

amount with respec t to this defe ndant' s financia l obligations. Instead, the trial cour

t verba lly announce d defe ndant’s sente nce to se rve six y ear s’ imprisonment. ¶ 4 Wit hin the next 30 day s, on J une 28, 2012, def endant f iled a motion to reconsider this sentenc e, cha lleng ing only the leng th of his court-or dere d incar cer ation, the only component of his punishment announced by the trial cour

t on J une 6, 2012. On July 2, 2012, the cour

t conducte d a hea

ringand ver

bally denied de fenda

nt's motion to rec onsider his sentenc e. ¶ 5 There afte r, the c ourt signe d a judgment, dated July 2, 2012, ordering de fenda nt to serve six y ear s of incar cer ation in the Depa rtment of Corre ctions and additionally order ing de fenda

nt to pay an unspec ified amount of c ourt costs. Specifica lly , the cour t order r equire d defe ndant to “pay costs of prose cution here in.” The judgment order also awa rded de fenda

nt cre dit for 226 day s serve d in presente nce c ustody from Nove mber 20, 2011, the date of a rre st, until J uly

2, 2012, the date of

the denial of

his moti on to rec onsider sente nce. ¶ 6 The re cord c ontains a docume nt entitled “4th REVI SED CRI MI NAL COST SHEET,” presumably

completed by

the circ uit clerk, itemizing 10 sepa rate charg es. The f

ace of the prepr inted cost sheet a

ppear s to indicate this preprinted f orm was or igina lly

draf ted on J une 22, 2007. The “ 4th REVI SED CRI MI NAL COST SHEET” contains a list of the c ourt costs imposed on this defenda

nt totaling $497, tog ether with the statutory

authority for those c harg es. These itemiz ed cha

rg es included $200 in “ Gre en Sheet F ees,” a $50 “Court Sy stems Fee ,” and a $25 “Violent Crime Victim Asst. Fe e” ( VCV fee ). ¶ 7 The c ourt did not sign the c ost sheet or make any notation of rec ord to document it

2actua lly

revie wed a

nd then imposed the costs as summarized by the cler k. The re cord doe s not indicate whe ther de fenda

nt rec eived a

copy of the c ost sheet on J uly

2, 2012. On appe al, defe ndant re quests this court to corre ct ce rtain monetar y charg es re flec ted on the cost shee t. ¶ 8 ANALYSI S ¶ 9 For

the first time on appe al, def endant c halleng es $72 of the $497 in c harg es imposed by the cour t on J uly 2, 2012. Specifica lly , defe ndant re quests the cour t to reduce the sherif

f’s fe es by $5. In addition, defe ndant argues the $50 “ Court Sy stems Fee ” constitutes a f ine that would be satisfied by

applying the mandated statutory $5 cre dit for time defe ndant spent in prese ntence custody . Consequently , defe ndant ar gues, with the imposition of a fine in the for m of a fe e, the $25 VCV assessment must be re duced to $8. ¶ 10 The State a

rgues the c ourt sy stems char g e is a fe e, not a f ine and, ther efor e, the VCV f ee of $25 wa s corr ectly

assessed. T he State does not oppose a $5 reduc tion in the sheriff' s “Gre en Sheet Fe es.” ¶ 11 At the onset, we note miscalculations in assessed costs, such as the se, ar e fr equently discovere d by

a def endant f or the fir st tim e on appe al. Ty pically , when a

defe ndant fa ils to addre ss a cost issue in the trial cour t, defe ndant ra ises the monetar y issue for the f

irst time in thi s court by claimingthe sentenc e orde red be low is void, in part. It is well settled that the propriety of fines, f ees, a nd costs imposed by

the trial cour

t are revie wed by

this court de novo as a question of statutory

interpre tation. People v . Elcock , 396 I ll. App. 3d 524, 538 (2009). ¶ 13 Yet, def

endant ha s not requeste d this court to exercise appe llate jurisdiction on the basis of a void sente nce; de fenda nt simpl y asks this court to rec alculate the financ ial charg es imposed and modify

the judg ment. We are unable to do so, base d on the re cord be fore us. 3¶ 14 Her e, the tria l court fa iled to either itemize the costs imposed by court orde r or summarize the total char g es due in a written orde r bea

ringthe judg e’s signature . Whil e the c ourt order ed def

endant to pay

“pay costs of prose cution here in,” the cour t did not articulate the amount of those cha

rg es. It is clear f

rom this recor d, the financ ial charg es asse ssed by the cler k

wer e not questioned or a ddresse d in defe ndant’s motion to reconsider sentenc e pre sented to the trial court. ¶ 15 In a petition for r ehea ring , defe ndant claims this court may not consider f

orfe iture bef

ore

rea chingthe issue conc erningthe financ ial component of de fenda nt’s sentenc e since the State

rema ins silent on the issue of proce dural de fault. We reje ct def endant’ s contention that a c ourt of revie w may

not sua sponte identify

an issue, ra ised for the first time on appea l, that may not have been pr eser

ved for our re view or the revie w of a highe r cour

t. ¶ 16 As previously

stated, in our orig inal opinion, we re cognize forfe iture pre sents limit ations on the par ties, not reviewingcourts. People v . Davis , 213 I ll. 2d 459, 470 (2004). B ased on the circ umstances discusse d below, we elec t to consider the f inancial c onsequenc es imposed on this defe ndant in the intere st of maintaining a sound and uniform body of law. See Halpin v. Schultz , 234 I ll. 2d 381, 390 (2009) (re viewingcourts may look beyond considerations of forfe iture in order to maintain a sound and unifor m body of pre cede nt or wher e the inter ests of justice so require ). ¶ 17 Her e, the r ecor d reve als the trial cour t did not enter a written order assessingcosts in g ener al until J uly

2, 2012. Thus, when de fenda nt filed his motion t o rec onsider the se ntence on 1 J une 28, 2012, the a

mount of costs had not yet bee n deter mined or included in a

final, written

In re K.S. , 250 I ll. App. 3d 862, 863 (1993) (or al pronounc ements ar e not final, binding , 1 or appe alable a

nd the written judgment is the judgme nt of the cour t). 4order . There fore , neither de fenda nt nor the State had a

n opportunity

to raise a ny issue with respe ct to costs as ca lculated by the circ uit clerk on July

2, 2012. ¶ 18 Wit hout a sum cer tain set out in the judgme nt order, w e ca nnot be conf

ident reg ardingthe specific amounts the court intende d to order this defenda nt to pay . Any

miscalculations with reg ard to moneta

ry char g es ar e best a ddresse d in the trial court, with both par ties prese nt. Consequently , we r emand the matter to the trial cour t with directions to review and, if ne cessa

ry , to corre ct the costs summarized in the cler k’s cost shee t and incorpor ate the c orre ct amount of a ll financ ial char g es into a written or der, pe rhaps a n agree d order , identifying the amount and natur e of ea ch cha

rg e orde red by

the cour t for pay ment as par

t of defe ndant' s sentence in this case. ¶ 19 CONCLUSI ON ¶ 20 The judg ment of the c ircuit court of Wil l County

is affirme d and the c ause is re manded with directions. ¶ 21 Affir

med and r emande d with directions.

5