No. 2—09—0560 Opin ion f il ed March 16, 2011

______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS SECOND DI STRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPL

E OF TH E STATE ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court OF ILLINOIS, ) o f Win ne ba go Co un t y. ) Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, ) ) v. ) No. 08—CF—4379 ) TI TO P. VE GA, ) Ho no r ab le ) Rich ard A. Lucas, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) Judge, Presi din g.

______________________________________________________________________________ JUS TI CE BUR KE d elivered t he judg ment o f the co ur t , w ith o pinion. Pr esiding J ust ice Jo rg ense n and J ust ice McL ar en co ncur re d in t he judg ment a nd o pinion. OPINI ON Ti to P. Ve ga ap pe als h i s c on v i cti on of cri m i n al da mag e to g ov er

n men t-suppor ted property inexce ss o f $50 0 ( 720 ILC S 5 /2 1—4 (1 )( a) (Wes t 200 8) ), a Class 3 felo ny. At issue is w het he r Vega’s coun sel

wasi ne f f ecti ve wh en he f ail ed to tim

el y di scover th at s al es tax m igh t have b een wr o ng ly char ged and p aid du ring t he r epa ir pr oc ess, suc h t hat t he actual dam age was under $500, making h i s of

f ense a C l as s 4f

el on y . We dete

rm i n e th at V eg a’ s c ounse l

wa s i n ef f ecti v e f or f ai l i n g to t imely d isc o ve rt he mat t er . Ac co r din gly, we r ev er se an d r ema nd fo ra n ew t r ial. I. BACKG

ROUNDNo. 2—09—0560

-2-

Vega wa s ch arge d b

y i n di ctm en t wit h mu lt i

pl e of f ense s, i n cl udi n g cri m i n al da mag e to governm ent-support ed

prop erty i n e xc es s of $50 0 i n c onn ec ti on w i th d am ag e that he c au se d to a Loves Park poli

ce veh ic le . At t rial, a n officer t est ifi

ed t hat he lear ned t hat t he da mage w as a ppr oximat ely $501 . An es ti mator for the busines s t hat per for med r epa irs t o t he vehicle t est ifi ed t hat t he to tal esti

ma te was $501.93. The e sti

mator sta ted th at the ac t ua l bill

in some c ase s co uld be mo re or less t han t he estim ate, b ut s i n ce th e v eh i cl e h ere n ee de d on l y on e p ar t, t he bill would be t he sa me as t he estim ate. He was not asked whether sa le s tax was i

ncl uded in the estim ate. The writtenestim

ate was entered i n to evi dence. It shows that$32.85 of the estim ate wa s sa l es tax on pa rts an d m aterial s. There was no evi dence provi

ded regardi

n g wh eth er t he t ax wa s ap pr op riat e o r w het her t he amo unt of t he es t imat e o rt he t ax wa s a ct ua lly p aid . T he jury fo un d V eg a g ui lt y. More t han 30 days a fte r t rial, bu t befo re sent encing, Veg a’s t rial co unse l disco ver ed t hat t he police department was ex em pt from pay in g sales tax. 35 ILCS 105/3—5(4) (West 2008). Wi thout t he sales tax i

ncl ude d, the damagew ould be under $500, r esultin g in a Class 4 f

elony . 720 I LCS 5/21—4(1) (West 2008) . Ve ga ’s co un se l file d a lat e mo t io n fo ra n ew t r ial b as ed o n t he di sc o ve ry, whi ch the court heard i

n i ts discretion. See People v. Harper, 3 4 7 Ill . App. 3d 499, 502 (2004) (a llowing di scre

tion to hear a

ny posttri al motion be f ore sen tenc i ng) . At the

he ari ng, the Stat e in dic ated that the

pol i cedepa rtm en t ha d pa i d the enti re $ 501 .93 of

the estim ate, although there was no for mal evidence pr ovid ed a bou t t hat . T he co ur t det er mined t hat t he ma tt er was f orfei ted, because Vega’s cou

ns el di d n ot ob je ct to the e stim

ate at trial. Vega was sentenced to three years’ in carcerat ion and ordered t o pay restitut ion. He appeals. II. AN AL YSISNo. 2—09—0560

-3-

Vega concedes that

t he issue co ncer ningthe sales tax was f orfei ted when i

t was not raised at trial , but he contends that his co unse l was ineffect ive for faili ng t o t imely

disco ver and rai se i

t. In t he al terna tiv e, he argu es that i t was p l ai n error to sentenc e hi

m f or aClass 3 fel ony, b ecause, when t he sales tax i s rem

oved f rom th e c al cul ati on , the dam

ag e to th e p rop er ty was actually

le ss than $500, re sult ingi n a C l as s 4f

el on y . Th e S tate contends that there was no error t o begi n wi th, arguin g that the sales tax m

ay be i ncl uded i n the determi

nation of the am ount o f the dam

age. A cla im o f ine ffec t ive as sis t an ce o f co un se l re qu ire s a de fen da nt t o es t ab lish t ha t ( 1) his att or ney’s performance f

ell below an objective st and ar d o f reasonablenes s and (2) t here is a r ea so na ble prob ab i l i

ty t ha t , bu t fo rco un se l’s un pr o fes sio na l er r o r s, t he r es ult o f t he pr o ce ed ing wo uld have b een dif f eren t. Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984). “Eff ective assistance of counsel me ans com

petent, not perfect, representation.” People v. Rodriguez , 364 Ill . App. 3d 304, 312 (2 006 ). To suc cee d o n a claim of ineffect ive assist ance , a defend ant m ust ove rc ome a st ro ng pr es um pti on that counsel’ s conduct was the resul t o f strat egi c choi ces rather than i ncom petence . People v. Evans , 186 I ll. 2d 8 3, 93 ( 199 9) . B eca use a de fendant must sat isfy bot h pr ong s o f the Strickland

t est , t he failure t o s at isfy ei t her element pr eclud es a finding of ine ff ec ti ve as sista nc e of counsel. People v. Lemke , 384 Il l . Ap p. 3d 43 7, 447 ( 2008) . Wh en da ma g e to go vernm

ent-support ed propert y e xceeds $500, b

ut do es not exceed $ 10, 000, t he cr ime i s a Cla ss 3 f elo ny, bu t wh en t he da mag e is $5 00 o rles s, it is a Cla ss 4 f elo ny. 720 ILCS 5/21—4 (1) (West 20 08 ) . T he pa r t ies do no t dis pu t e t ha t t he po lice ve hic le fell under t he de f i ni ti on of governm

ent-support ed propert y. 720 ILCS 5/21—4(1)(a) (West 20 08 ) (g ov er n mentsupported pr operty

i n cl udes an y pr operty su pp orte d i n wh ol e or i n pa rt w i th sta te f un ds , f un dsof aNo. 2—09—0560

-4-

un it of l oca l gov er n men t or s ch ool di str i ct, or f ederal f un dsad m i n i ste re d or gr an ted th rough sta te agen cies). In civ il ca se s, t he “r ea so na ble cost o f repa irs” is a proper measure of da

ma ge to perso nal property that i s rep ai

rab l e. People v. Carraro , 77 Ill . 2d 75, 80 (1979). Thus, by anal ogy, our su pr eme cour t has held that, when deter mi ni ng the amount of crim

in al dam age to pro pert y, “the cost of rep ai rs ne ce ss i tate d by a d ef en da nt’ s c ond uc t i s a n a ccura te i nd i ca ti on of t he da mage s uffere d by t he victim and is t her efo re a pr op er metho d by which t o de t er mine the def endan t’s crim in al responsi bi li ty.” Id . We ar e una ble to find any case s, e ither in Illi nois o r o ut side o f it, t hat dire ct ly addr ess t he ef f ec t of wron gl y ch arg ed sa l estax on a d eterm i na ti on of the am oun t of damag e t o p ro per t y. One j urisd i cti on has h el d that sales tax

wa s p rope

rl y i nc l ude d, b ut i n th at c as e, th e s al estax wa s a l so n ot wr o ng ly ch arg ed . In ste ad , i

t wa s p rope

rl y pai d a s a

n u na voi da bl e c ost of the rep ai

rs. State v. Gilbert , 90 2 P . 2d 18 2, 18 3 ( Wa sh. Ct . Ap p. 19 95 ) . Ho we ve r , in c o nt ex t s o t he rt ha n d ama ge t o pr o pe r t y, co ur t s have held t ha t sal estax sh oul d n ot be i nc l ude d i n th e c al cul ati on of va l uef or purposes of

determi ni ng the l evel of cri mi nal conduct. See, e.g., Tunnell v. St ate , 659 P.2d 898, 899 (N. M. 1 983 ); State v. Adams , 529 N .E.2d 126 4, 1266 -67 (Oh i o 1988). In Adams , the def

en da n t wa s ch arge d w i

th re ceiving stolen property val ued at $300 or more. The propert y, a radar detector, had a list price of $295, but the replac em ent cost was $311.23 when sales tax was i

ncl uded. T he Oh io Su pr eme Court determi ned that i t was im proper t o inc lude

sales taxi n th e determ i na ti on of the val ue of the property. Observ in g that sales

taxis subj ect to num

erous exem ptions, the c o ur t de t er min ed tha t i nc l udi ng i t i n th e c al cul ati on of the va l ueof prop erty f or purposes of establ

is hi ng the degree o f

a th ef t wou ld v

iolate a state co nsti

tut iona l provisi on thatNo. 2—09—0560

-5-

required un i f orm ope rati on of l aws . Otherwi se, a

de f en da n t ac cu se d of

ste al i n g a n i tem f rom an en ti ty subj ect t o s ales t ax co uld be subjec t t o a felony, w hile a defend ant who st ole t he sa me it em fr o m a tax-exem pt ent ity co uld be convi

cted of on l y a m i sdemean or. Adams , 5 29 N .E .2 d at 126 6- 67. (We do not have the sam

e state co nstitut ional pr ovisio n in Illi nois. ) I n Tunnell, t he co ur t he ld t ha t , in casesof reta i l the f t, sa l estax i s n ot t o be included in det er mini ng t he value of t he ite m that was st olen. The court reasoned that the retail theft of an

item is not an even

t t hat triggers the i

mposi tion of sa le s tax. See Tunnell, 659 P.2d at 899. Des pit e t he l ack of

ca se l aw di re ctl y on poi n t, o ne t hing is c lea r

—t he co st o f r ep air s s ho uld take into co nsider at ion o nly amount s t hat ar e r eas ona bl e, and a sa l es tax th at is n ot owe d is n

ot a r ea so na ble cost of repairs. Bec aus e cha llengingthe sales tax here could have resul ted in a lower c lass of offense , w e ag re e wit h Veg a t hat his at t or ney’s re pr ese nt at ion fell below an o bject ive sta nd ard of reasonablenes s when

he f ai le d to tim

el y di scover the m

atter an d r ais e it at t r ial. Further, there is a r ea so na ble proba

bi l i ty th at, bu t for th e error, t he sa les t ax wo uld have been e xclude d and t he r es ult o f t he pr o ce ed ing wo uld ha ve be en di ffe r en t . Ac co r di ng ly, we determi ne that Vega’s couns el

was ine ffec t ive an d w e r ev er se an d r ema nd fo ra n ew t r ial. Vega ask s t hat we a pply t he plain-e rr or do ct rine and re duc e t he degree of hi s off ense i nstead. Howev er, it i s not clear f rom the record whether the poli ce departmen

t actuall y pa id a n im prope r sales t ax, and t he parties h av e not deve l oped th e i ssue. Thus, we do not fi nd pl ai n error and i

nstead r ema nd fo ra n ew t r ial. III. CONCLUSIONNo. 2—09—0560

-6-

Vega’s counsel

was i nef fecti ve wh en h e fai le d to tim el y di scoverand r aise t he issue of t he i nc l us i on of sa les t ax in the det er minatio n of t he co st of r epa irs. Acco rd ingly, the judg ment o f the cir cu it co ur t o f Winne ba go Co un t y is r ev er se d a nd t he ca us e is r ema nd ed fo ra n ew t r ial. Reversed a

nd rem anded.