Illinois Official Reports 

Appellate Court

People v. Grant, 2017 IL App (4th) 150636

Appellate Court 

Caption

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. 

NATHAN GRANT, Defendant-Appellant.

District & No. Fourth District

Docket No. 4-15-0636

Filed November 27, 2017

Decision Under 

Review

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Vermilion County, No. 12-CF-79; 

the Hon. Craig H. DeArmond, Judge, presiding.

Judgment Appeal dismissed.

Counsel on

Appeal

Michael J. Pelletier, Jacqueline L. Bullard, and Ryan R. Wilson, of 

State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.

Patrick Delfino, David J. Robinson, and Allison Paige Brooks, of 

State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, of Springfield, for 

the People.

Panel JUSTICE APPLETON delivered the judgment of the court, with 

opinion.

Presiding Justice Turner and Justice Steigmann concurred in the 

judgment and opinion.
- 2 - 

 OPINION 

¶ 1 Defendant, Nathan Grant, appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion to amend 

mittimus. He concedes the issue raised in his motion is moot because he has fully served his 

sentence, but he uses the opportunity of this appeal to raise an issue regarding the propriety of 

the imposition of fines by the circuit clerk. The State does not dispute defendant’s claim 

regarding the fines but argues the appeal should be dismissed for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. We agree and dismiss the appeal for a lack of jurisdiction. 

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND 

¶ 3 In December 2013, defendant pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance, and as 

part of the plea agreement, he agreed to a sentence of two years in prison. His sentence was to 

be served consecutively to his three-year sentence he was then serving from a prior felony 

(Douglas County case No. 11-CF-70). Defendant did not file a postplea or postsentencing 

motion. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(d) (eff. Mar. 8, 2016). 

¶ 4 In June 2015, defendant filed a pro se “motion to amend mittimus,” asking the trial court to 

clarify the mittimus for the Illinois Department of Corrections (DOC). In particular, defendant 

requested that the sentencing order specify that his two-year prison term began at the end of his 

prior three-year prison term, not at the end of his mandatory-supervised-release term (MSR) on 

this three-year sentence. He claimed: “The MSR on [case No.] 11-CF-70 should [run] 

concurrent to [his two-year sentence] or shouldn’t [have] existed at all once [case No.] 

12-CF-79’s time was calculated to the finished time on [case No.] 11-CF-70.” He requested the 

court “order a new mittimus with orders to [DOC] to calculate defendant’s sentence 

consecutive pursuant to Illinois statutes.”

¶ 5 In July 2015, the trial court denied defendant’s motion by docket entry, noting the “issue 

has already been addressed by the court in previous orders.” This appeal followed.

¶ 6 II. ANALYSIS 

¶ 7 Defendant abandons his mittimus issue because his sentence has already been served, and 

therefore, he acknowledges the issue is moot. However, he uses the opportunity presented by 

this appeal to argue that certain fines imposed upon him after sentencing should be vacated 

because they were improperly imposed by the circuit clerk. The State does not disagree. In 

fact, the State “acknowledges that defendant appears to owe multiple void clerk-imposed fines, 

according to recent records of the circuit clerk.” But the State claims we cannot consider this 

issue because we are without subject matter jurisdiction. 

¶ 8 The First District recently issued an opinion addressing the issue presented here. See 

People v. Griffin, 2017 IL App (1st) 143800. We find the court’s opinion in Griffin persuasive, 

and we adopt its reasoning. In Griffin, the defendant filed a motion to amend mittimus more 

than 30 days after sentencing. Griffin, 2017 IL App (1st) 143800, ¶ 1. The trial court denied 

that motion, and the defendant appealed. On appeal, the defendant abandoned the substantive 

claim but challenged, for the first time, the assessment of certain fines and fees. Griffin, 2017 

IL App (1st) 143800, ¶ 1. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction 

because (1) the defendant had failed to file a motion pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 
- 3 - 

604(d) (eff. Mar. 8, 2016) within 30 days of sentencing and (2) the order denying the motion to 

amend mittimus was not a final and appealable order. Griffin, 2017 IL App (1st) 143800, ¶ 1. 

¶ 9 Not only do we adopt the First District’s analysis on the substantive issues, we also adopt 

the court’s dicta regarding the frequency of “fines-and-fees issues” raised for the first time on 

appeals. We agree with the court that such issues are more appropriately resolved at the trial 

level. It is likely that many such issues could be resolved by (1) the parties’ routine review of 

the judgment orders and (2) cooperation among the parties to correct any errors discovered. 

See Griffin, 2017 IL App (1st) 143800, ¶ 7. We likewise encourage the State’s Attorney and 

defense counsel to review judgment orders upon entry to ensure that fines and fees are 

correctly assessed. Such a review may eliminate the need for appeals based merely on clerical 

mistakes. Further, “in the wake of Castleberry and given the ‘narrow and limited’ scope of 

plain[-]error review (People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167, 177 (2005)), it is questionable whether 

appellate courts may or should address contentions of error regarding fines and fees that were 

never raised in the trial court.” Griffin, 2017 IL App (1st) 143800, ¶ 9 (citing People v. 

Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916). 

¶ 10 Because defendant did not file a timely Rule 604(d) motion after his guilty plea, the trial 

court retained jurisdiction only to “correct clerical errors or matters of form,” not to review any 

substantive issue. Griffin, 2017 IL App (1st) 143800, ¶¶ 11-12. That is, here, the trial court had

jurisdiction to consider defendant’s motion to amend mittimus. However, that jurisdiction does 

not automatically extend to the appellate court. Griffin, 2017 IL App (1st) 143800, ¶ 12. 

¶ 11 The trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion to amend mittimus is not a final order 

for purposes of appeal over which this court has jurisdiction. After the court’s denial, the 

original judgments remained in place. “Where, as here, a court does not enter or modify a 

judgment *** there is no new final order from which to appeal.” Griffin, 2017 IL App (1st) 

143800, ¶ 15. 

¶ 12 Without the filing of a Rule 604(d) motion, this court has no jurisdiction to review the 

propriety of a trial court’s order denying a motion to amend mittimus. The judgments 

originally entered must stand. 

¶ 13 III. CONCLUSION 

¶ 14 For the reasons stated, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

¶ 15 Appeal dismissed.