No. 2—09—0404 Opin ion f il ed Feb ruary 23, 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 ppel le e, ) ) v. ) No. 08—CM—7016 ) MAR GAR ET CURTIS, ) Ho no r ab le ) Clarke C. Barnes, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) Judge, Presi din g.

______________________________________________________________________________ JUS TI CE HUT CHI NS ON d elivered t he judg ment o f the co ur t , w ith o pinion. Jus t ices Mc Lar en and Hud so n co ncur re d in t he judg ment a nd o pinion. OPINI ON De f en da n t, Margaret Cu

rti s, a l so k now n as P eg gy

Cu rti s, a ppe als f rom he r con vi cti on of o ne co unt o f vio lat in g th e d

uti esof an an i mal own er p urs ua nt to s ec ti on 3 (d) of

the Hu man e C are f or Anima ls Act

(t he Act ) by

“ kn owi n gl y an d u n l aw f ul l y f ai l i n g to prov

i de h um an e c ar e a n d tr ea tm en t” to her pet cat. See 510 ILCS 70/3(d ) (W es t 200 8). On

appe al , de f

en da nt c onte nds th at: ( 1) s ec ti on 3(d) of the A ct i s u nc ons ti tutiona l l y voi d f or v ag ue ne ss ; ( 2) th

e Sta te f ai l ed to p r o ve be yo nd a
r ea so na ble do ubt t hat she d id no t pr ovid e humane car e and treat me nt to her cat; and (3) th e tri al

court er r ed wh en it ca lcu lat ed t he impo se d fin es an d, t hu s, t ho se fine s s ho uld be r ed uc ed
. We affir m.No. 2—09—0404

-2-

Defend ant l i

ve d i n a two-b ed room to wnhouse apart men

t with 87 cat s. Fi

ve cats th at were pers o na lly

owned by

defen dant remai

ned i n he r bedroom, whi

le the other eighty

-two cat s wer e located elsew her e t hro ugho ut t he r eside nce. Defend ant claimed t hat t he 82 cat s we re not ow ned by her, bu t we r e s t r ays that had come to her door . Defen

dant, feari ng f or t he stray

cats’ saf ety, provi ded them wi th f ood, water, an

d sh el ter. On Septem be r 8, 200 8, def

en da nt c al l ed an an i mal con trol f ac i l i ty to rem ove a l l the c ats. The ani

ma l con trol f ac i l i ty wa s a sk ed to ke epa p ar

ti cul ar b l ack c at s ep arate f rom t he o t her cat s bec aus e t ha t ca t w as “s peci al to the owner.” That cat had a respi rato ry tract i n f ec ti on an d w as eu th an ize d. D ef en da n t wa s s ub se qu en tl y ch arge d w i th violat ingher duties

as an an i mal own er b ec au se of h er tre atm en t towa rd th at p ar ti cul ar ca t. De f en da nt wasi ni ti al l y ch arg ed wi th two cou

nts of violatin g her duties

as an ani ma l owne r pur sua nt to sections

3(c) and (d) of the Act. See 510 ILCS 70/3( c), (d ) (West 200 8). Sec ti on 3 of the Act pro vides: “Owner’s Duties. Each owner shall pro vide for each of hi s ani mals: (a) suf f i ci en t quan tity of g ood qual

i ty, w holesom e f ood and water; (b) a dequate sh

el ter an d protection f

rom th e wea ther; (c ) ve t er inary car e whe n need ed t o p re vent suffer ing; and (d) h um ane ca re an d treatm en t.” 510 IL CS 70/3 (West 200 8). Co unt I all

eged that defen

dant knowi

ngl y a nd unl awful ly fai le d to provide

suf f i ci en t veteri na ry care to pr event suff

ering to t he particular bl

ack cat. See 510 ILCS 70/3(c) (West 2008). Count I I all eged t hat defend ant kno wingly and unlaw fully failed t o p ro vide humane car e and t re at ment for t he sa me particul ar b l ack c at. See 5 10 IL CS 70/3(d) (W est 200 8).No. 2—09—0404

-3-

On March 13, 2009, a ben

ch trial was he l d i

n the m atter. At the trial , the Stat e’s ev ide nce establ is hed that on Septemb er 8, 2008, t hree an im al cont ro l off

icers went t o de fendant’s resi dence be ca us e s he r ep o r t ed ly wis he d t o r ele as e s o me c at s t o t he m. Deput y Stacy test if

ied that defendant’s resi dence contai ned two upstairs bedrooms a nd ha d
a kit chen and a livi

ng r oo m on t he main floo r. Te n t o fifte en ca t s we re pr ese nt when t he off ic er s entered defen dant’s resi dence. Stacy

testifi ed that she f

ound approxim

ately 50 “wi ld-l ike ” cat s in one of the bedrooms. She testi fi ed t hat t he bed ro om “had a[ n] a mmonia o do r. The re was a st ro ng sme ll of cat urine a

nd f eces.” Acc ording to Stacy’s testim ony, the b edr oom co ntained two litter boxes. Stacy t est ifi ed t hat she a nd her co lleague s gr abbed t he ca ts w i tha s pe cia l t o o l an d p lac ed t he m in cages. Stac

y tes ti f i ed tha t man y of the cats suff

ered from an upper respi

rato ry tract in

fection and that thi s wa s “ very typ i cal of i nb reedi ng.” Stacy tes ti f i ed tha t i n th e s ec ond be droom she fo un d o nly

f i ve cats. Th ese cats w ere m

ore doc i l e th an th e c ats in t he o t her bedr oo m; the y were eas y to cap t ur e. This bed ro om co nt ained o ne li tt er b ox . Sta cy testi f i ed th at, i n total , the a

ni mal control off i cers removed 87 cat s from defendant’s resi dence. Stacy testifi ed that one particul ar

bl ack ca t, with the i dentif ic ation num

ber A209057, was bro ught to the

an i mal con trol f ac i l i ty se pa rate l y f rom the other cats. S tacy testif ie d that she bel

ie ved that de f endan t brough t that cat to the f

aci l i ty two da y s later. In ve sti ga torMa ce , w h o al so worked

f or a n i mal con trol , te sti f ie d that defenda

nt si gned an ani ma l release f orm f or t he 87 cats. He testif ie d that t here were a total of f our li tt er boxes in defendant’s re si

den ce . H e f

ur th er testi f i ed th at th e c ats h e ob se rved i n th e a n i mal con trol f ac i l i ty were “f eral, l i ke s tray cats.”No. 2—09—0404

-4-

The expert witness testim

ony of veterin arian Loren Gam

brel was adm itted. Gamb

rel testifi ed tha t he exam i ne d the c atstak en

f rom de f en da nt’ s r es i de nc e. H e te sti

f i ed tha t man y of th e c ats had upper re sp i ra tory tra ct i n f ec ti on s, ev

i den t b ec au se th e c ats had disch arge aro und their ey

es and noses. Gam brel testifi ed that, o n Septemb er 10, 2008, he exam in ed the bl ack ca t wi th i de nti f i ca ti on num ber A209057. Gam

brel testifi ed that cat A209 057 suffer ed fr om an u ppe r r esp irat or y tr act infect ion and that he treated the in

fection with a

ntibiotics . Gamb

rel f urther test if

ie d that upper respiratory tract infect ions in cat s have an incuba t ion p er iod of 5 t o 1 0 da ys. Ga mbrel o pined t hat no mor e t han five
ca ts should resi de i

n a si ngl e pl ace to ensure ahealt hy env ironm ent for the ani

ma ls . He testifi

ed that upper re sp i

ra tory tra ct i n f ec ti on s c an

con ti n ue ci rc ul ati n g, b ei n g r ep ea ted l y pa ss ed f rom ca t to ca t, so t ha t , in an overcrowded env

ironm ent, none of the cats can

ever re co ver . O n cr os s-e xaminatio n, Ga mbr el a ck no wle dg ed t ha t az it hr o mycinis a m edi cation used to treat upper re spira t or y inf

ect ions in cats. The Stat e rested, and def endan t moved f or a d i rected f i nd i ng , ar gui ng tha t the pros ecution fai le d to prov e th

at c at A 20 90 57 b el

on ge d to def

endan t. The t rial co ur t denied defend ant ’s mot ion. Veterina rian Bruce Pro bst of

the Boon e C oun ty Fa m i l y Pet C l i ni c te sti f i ed on b eh al f of de f en da n t. He testifi

ed that defen

dant brought her cats i

nto t he cl in ic for treatment. He testifi

ed that defend ant fi

rst came to the cli

nic i n Jul y 20 07. Pro bst identified Exhibi t DX 1 as defendant ’s
veteri na ry records from the c l i

n i c. Pro b st te sti

f i ed th at h e trea ted de f en da n t’s ca t Ba b y Boy wi th
az it hr o mycinfor a respirat ory i nf ection. He testif

ie d that t he prescri

ption f or t he an tibi ot ic was refi ll ed several tim es. Probst t estif

ie d that defenda

nt brought “di ff

erent cats [in

to the clin

ic ] at different ti

mes .” W h en aske d w h eth er de f en da n t atte m pte d to t ake go od car e o f the cat s she bro ught i n, Prob st res

ponde d tha

t “sh e tri ed to he l

p them .”No. 2—09—0404

-5-

Defend ant t est ifi

ed t hat she ow ned five ca

ts. S he tes ti f i ed tha t the othe r ca ts re move d f rom her re sidenc e did no t belong t o he r. She testi f i ed th at th e oth er ca ts “ j us t ca me to th e door a t n i gh t” because t hey wer e hung ry o r t hirst y. She t est ifi ed t hat she d id no t t urn the cat s away, because ot herwise “O lso n’s do gs wo uld kill them.” She testif i ed th at he

r f i ve cats re cei ve d ve teri na ry care. Defe ndan t denie d that she brought a cat to ani ma l c ontro l on Septem

ber 10, 2008, or o n an

y other date. She t est ifi

ed t hat she w ou ld have ha d t o s ign a se pa ra te release f

orm i f s he b rought any an

im al to the an i mal control cen ter. Af ter the defe

nse rested, the State inf

ormed the trial court that it was sur prised by defendant’s t est imony and as ked f

or a c on ti nuan

ce so that it could presen t rebutt al testim ony f rom a kenn

el supe rvisor. The trial

court granted

the Stat e’s request. On March 20, 200 9, t he t rial re sumed . T he Sta te m ov ed to re open

i ts c as e- i n -c h i ef , ra th er th an to pres en t reb utta l te st imony. T he tria

l court allowe d t he St at e’s mo t ion. Gary Lon ga ne cker, the

di rector of ani ma l s ervices f

or Win neb ago County, testifi

ed that on Septembe r8, 200 8, he he l

pe d to c ol l ec t the

ca ts f rom defen dant’s resi

dence. Longan

ecker testif

ie d that he dr ove a van f

ull of cats from defendan

t’s residence to t he ani

mal contr ol kennels. Longanec ker testifi ed t ha t he wa s t o ld

that one particula

r cat was speci al

to the owner and n

eeded to be ke pt sep ar at e fro m the o t her s; he d id no t spe cify who co nveyed t hi s in fo r mat io n t o him. Longanec ker pu t th at c at i n to i ts own carrier. A

t anim al servi ces, Longan

ecker transf

erredcustody of al l the c ats to the kenn

el workers. He t estif

ie d that he

told S an dra Te j ada, th e ken ne l supe rvisor, that a particul

ar cat was “speci

al to the owner and was s

upposedt o be kep t fro m the majo rit y of t he cats.” On cr os s-e xaminatio n, Longanec ker admi tt ed that, although he kn

ew that the particul ar catNo. 2—09—0404

-6-

ca me f rom de f en da nt’ s r es i de nc e, h

e di d n ot know from

where i n he rhome it cam e. He adm

itted that he di d not gi

ve the c at an

i den tif i cation n um ber. Ken nel supervi sor Sandra Tejada testi fi ed that the procedur

e used by staff at the faci

li ty was that animals wer e given impo und num bers wh en they arriv ed at the ke nn el . Te j ad a te sti f i ed tha t, on Septembe r8, 2008, she assi

gned n umb er A2 09057to a bl

ack c at. T eja da t es t ified t ha t she wa s t o ld that the cat was “a personal cat t o t he o wner ” and was t o be “tr eat ed d iff er ent ly than t he r est of t he cats.” Cat A209057 was placed i n an is olated area but was l

ater euthanized. On Mar ch 20 , 2 009 , fo llowing ar gument s by the par t ies, t he t rial co ur t fou nd de f en da n t gui l ty on co unt II, f

ail ure to provi

de h um ane ca re an d treatm en t to cat A209 057. She w as f oun d n ot gu i l ty of co unt I, failure t o p ro vide vet er inary car e. On t hat same d ay, t he t rial co ur t sent ence d de fendant to 24 months ’ condi

tional di sch arge a nd 2day s i n j ail , wi th cre di t for 1 day

served. The condi

tional dis chargeor der st at ed t hat defend ant was not t o o wn any co mpanion a nimals and t hat she w ou ld be subj ect to a monthl

y search of

her residence b

y W in nebago Count y an

im al servi ces. The trial

court also impose d o n defend ant var iou s ass essment s, includ inga $2 0 cr imi nal/t ra ffi c su rc har ge a nd

an $8 victim’s- fundf

i ne . De f en da nt f i l ed a m oti on f ora new trial , which the trial

court deni

ed on Apri

l 3, 2009. Defen

dant tim el y a ppeal ed. Defend ant f

i rs t con ten dstha t se cti on 3( d) o f t he Ac t is unconstitut ional ly void f or vagueness, as applie d. Se e 5 10 I LC S 7 0/ 3( d) ( We st 20 08 )
. De fen da nt ar gu es t ha t t he st at ut e fa ils to provide adeq ua te notice to ani

ma l owners of the steps they

m us t tak e to prov i de “ h um an e c ar e a n d tr ea tm en t” and fai ls to defi ne the o ff

ense i n a man ner that woul

d prev en t arbi trary and di scri

m i na tory en f orc em en t. The S tate

cou n ter s th at th e b ur den i s on de f en da n t to de mon strate the statut e’ s i nv al i di ty an d that d ef en da nt’ s a rgu men t f ai l s to do so.No. 2—09—0404

-7-

Al thoughdefen

dant did not pres ent t his claim i n t he t rial co ur t , a challenge t o t he
con sti tuti on al i ty of a statu te may berai sed

f or the f i rst ti me on a ppea l
. People v. Wooters , 18 8 I ll. 2d 500 , 51 0 (1 999 ). Th

e f ed era l an d s tatecon sti

tutions man da te that n o pe rs on sha ll be depri ve d of “l if e, l i b er ty , or prop er

ty , w i th out d ue pr oce ss of l aw .” U. S. C on st. , a

men ds . V , X IV ; Il

l . C on st. 1970, ar t. I, §2 . “Du e p roc es s of

l aw ” r eq ui re s th at th e p ros cr ipt io ns o f a p en al s t at ut e b e c lea r ly def i ne d. City of Chicago v. Morales , 177 Il l . 2d 440 , 448 (1 997). A statut e i s presum

ed co nst itu t ional and t he pa rt y challenging t he st at ut e bea rs t he bu rde n of dem onstra tin g i ts i nv al i di ty. People v. Boand, 362 Ill . App. 3d 106, 138-39 (2005) (citi ng People
v. Malchow , 193 Ill . 2d413 ,4 18 ( 200 0) ). Review ing co ur t s have a du t y to co nst ru e t he st at ut e in a
ma nne rth at u ph ol dsi ts co nst itu t ionalit y if

it ca n be do ne r eas ona bly, and a ny dou bt mus t be resolv

ed in favo r o f the statute’ s val

i di ty. People v. Larson , 379 Ill . App. 3d 642, 650 (2008) (citin g Boand , 362 Ill . App. 3d at 139, citin g Malchow , 193 Il

l . 2d at 41 8). The

f und am en tal pri nc i pl e of statutory con stru cti on i s to asc er t ain and g iveef f ect to the l

egi slature’ s i

nten t. Larson , 379 Ill . App. 3d at 650 (c iting People v. Pierce , 226 Ill . 2d 470, 475-76 (2007), ci ting People v. Pack

, 22 4 I ll. 2d

144, 147 (2007 )). T he lan gu ag e o f t he st at ut e is th e b est i n di ca ti on of th e l eg i sl atu re ’s i n ten t, and it sho uld be giv en i ts plai n a nd ord i na ry mean i ng. Larson , 3 79 I ll. App. 3d a t 650 (c iting Pierce , 226 Ill . 2d at 476, ci ting Pack , 2 24 I ll. 2d a t 147 ). Where t he st at ut e is clear and un amb igu o us , we mus t ap ply it
as written, wi

thout resort to extrin

si c ai ds of statutory c onstruc tion
. Larson , 379 Ill . App. 3d at 650 (citi ng People v. Collins , 2 14 I ll. 2d 2 06, 214 (2 005 )) . We furt her not e t hat t he t ra dit ional ca nons or maxi ms of statuto ry cons

truct ion a re not rules of l

aw, but ra t her ar e “mere ly aids in det er mini ng legislat iveintent and mus t yield to suc h intent .” Lar son , 379 Ill . App. 3d at 650 (citin g In re Application of the County Treasurer

, 214 Il l . 2d 25 3, 2 59 (2 00 5) ). Th e c on sti tuti on al i ty of a statu teNo. 2—09—0404

-8-

is a q ue sti on of l aw , su bj ec t to de novo review. Larson , 379 Ill . App. 3dat 650 (citin g Boand , 362 Ill . App. 3d at 139, citin

g People v. Carney , 196 Il l . 2d 518 , 526 (2 001)). “A st at ut e is vo id for vagu enes s o nly i f it fails to (1 ) ‘p ro vide t he kin d of notice that

wo uld
en ab le a person of ordin

ary i ntell ige nce to understand what conduct is prohib ited,’ or (2) ‘provi de
ex plic it standards f

or t hose who appl

y i t, t hus aut

horizi ng or even e nco ur aging a rbit ra ry and di scri m i na tory enf orcemen t.’ ” Larson , 379 Ill . App. 3d at 650 (quot in g People v. Law, 202 Ill . 2d 578, 582-83 (2002)). “Whether a statut e i s voi d for vaguen ess m ust be det ermi

ned i n the f actual
co nt ext of each cas e.” Larson , 379 Ill . App. 3d at 650 (citin g People v. Falbe , 189 Ill . 2d 635, 639 (2000 )). “Th

e testsf or ass ess i ng w hether a la wi s vague

are n ot capab l e of

mech an i sti c app l i cation.” Larson , 379 Ill . App. 3d at 650 (citin g City of Chicago v. Pooh Bah Enterprises, Inc. , 224 I ll. 2d 39 0, 44 3 ( 20 06 ) )
. Ho we ve r , in an y con tex t, “ ‘th ere are l i m i ts to the d egree

of pr ec isio n a t t ain ab le by the Engl is h l anguage.’ ” Larson , 3 79 I ll. App. 3d a t 650 (q uo t ing City of Chicago , 224 Ill . 2dat 444). “In Ward

v. Rock A gainst Ra cism , 491 U .S. 781 * ** (19 89), the Uni ted States S uprem

e Court recogniz ed

th at ‘ perf ec t cl ari ty and preci se guidance h

ave n ever been required ev

en of regul

ations that restrict expressi

ve acti vi ty.’ ” Larson , 379 Ill . App. 3d at 650 (quo ting Ward, 49 1 U .S. at 794)
. “M oreover , ‘when

jud gin g t he co nst it ut io na lit y o f a r ule o rst at ut e, co mmo n se nse ca nno t an d s ho uld not be suspended. ’ ” Larson , 379 Ill . App. 3d at 650 (quo ting City of Chicago , 224 Ill . 2d at 444, ci ting Anders on v. Milw

aukee C ounty , 433 F .3d 975 , 978 (7 th Ci r. 2006 )). Thus, secti on 3(d) of the Act must sat isfy two re quir ement s t o c omp or t wit h t he standards of due process. Fi

rst, t he statute’s prohib itions m ust be suf fi ci ently defi ni te, when m

easured b y com m on un ders tandi ng an d pr ac t ice s, t o info r m a p er so n o f o r din ar y int ellig en ce wh at co nd uc t is la wful and wh at conduct is

unl awful . See Larson , 37 9 Il l . A pp. 3d a t 650 ; s eealso People v. Izzo ,No. 2—09—0404

-9-

195 Ill . 2d 109, 113 (2001). Second, t he st at ut e mu st pr o vid e “ ‘s uffic ien t ly de f i ni te s tan da rds f or la wen f orc em en t of f i cersan d tri er s of f ac t su ch th at i ts app licatio n do es no t dep end mer ely o n t he ir pri v ate conceptions.’ ” Larson , 3 79 I ll. App. 3d a t 650 -5 1 ( quo t ing Izzo , 1 95 I ll. 2d a t 113 ). So long
as a defe ndan t’s conduct clearl

y f al ls withi n the statuto ry proscri

ption, a def

endan t may be prosecuted under the statut e i

n ha rmony with due process, even though the s tatut e m ay be vague as to ot her cond uct. Larson , 379 Ill . App. 3d at 651 (citin g Izzo , 195 Il

l . 2d at 11 3). Inthe pr esent mat ter , t his court is asked to det ermin e whet her defendant’s conduc t constitutedi

nh um ane ca re and treat men

t t o cat A209057 as ape r so n o f o r din ar y int ellig en ce wo uld unde rst and it. We determin e that a perso n of ordinary i ntelli gence wo uld consider defendant ’s conduct to ward cat A209057 i nhum ane. Here, defend an

t al lowed 82 f

eral c ats in

to her two-bedroo m townhouse, creati ng an uns an i tary en vi ronm en t for h er pet c at A2 09057 . Testi mony adduced a

t tri al es ta blished t hat t he presence of su ch a signi f

i ca n t num ber of a ni mal s i n a n e nc l osed s pace made c at A2 09057more su sc ep t ible to dis ease an

d chronic i

nf ection. The ev

ide nce sh owed th at t he bed ro om co nt aining ap pr o ximat ely

50 cats sm

el le d strongly

of uri ne an d fece s and that the resi

dence contai

ned onl y f our li tt er boxes. Man

y of the cats suff

ered in fections. Cat A209057 suf fered an i nf ection so severe that it led t o it s de mise. Alt hou gh de fendant may have bel ie ved that sh e w assa vi ng the stra y ca ts f rom ce r t ain dea t h, a r ea so na ble pe r so n w o uld un de r st an d t ha t he rac t io ns c au se d c at A2 09 05 7 t o ex ist in
an unsanitary e

nvi ronmen t where the cat becam

e so sic k that ani ma l c ontro l pe

rsonnel deem ed i t ne ces sary to euthani

ze the ani ma l. Com mon s ense tel

ls us that defendant’s actions were i nhum ane. See Larson , 379 I l l . Ap

p. 3d a t 650-51 (

hol di ng th at, i n m aki ng a determ i na tion as to whethe

r a sta tute is voi d f or va gue ne ss , com mon s en se

sh oul d n ot be su sp en de d, a nd cri m i na l ac ts c an notNo. 2—09—0404

-10-

al wa y s b e d ef i ne d w i th a bs ol utepre ci si

on b ec au se

of the li mi ts o f the English

la nguage). Thus, we det er mine that a person of ordinary

in tell ige nce would be aware that conf in in g over 80 stray

ca ts to a s i n gl e tow n h ous e r es i den ce

wou l d j eop ardi

ze th e h ea l th and sa n i tar y l i v i n g c on di ti on s of th e p ets on the premi

ses an d, in this case, constituted in

hum ane treatmen

t t o cat A209057. We further determi

ne that section 3(d) o f t he Ac t pr o vid es su fficie nt ly de f i ni te s tan da rds f or un bia sed appl i ca ti on b y b oth l aw en f orc em en t of f i cersan d tri er s of

f ac t. M er riam -Web ste r’ s Dicti onary

defi nes “ hum ane” as “mar ked by compa ssio n, sympat hy, o r c ons ider at ion fo r hu mans or an i mal s.”Me rr iam- We bst er On line D ict io na ry (2 01 0) , av aila ble at ht t p: // ww w. mer r iamwebs t er .c om/ dict ionar y/humane (last vi si ted Feb. 23, 2011). Def

endan t cites the comparab le

statut es of ot her states in

suppor t o f h

er po siti on. We not e that, under tho se statut es, defe ndan t’s conduct
wo uld stil

l b e considered in

hum ane. The Georgi a Code states t hat “ ‘[h ]uman e care’ of an

im al s means, bu

t i s n ot l i m i ted to, th e p rovi si

on of ad eq ua te hea t, v en ti l ati on , san itar y shelte r, and wh ol es o me and a deq uat e fo od and w at er .” Ga. Co de Ann. §4— 11— 2( 4) (Wes t 201 0) . V irgini a defi nes“hum ane” as “ an

y ac ti on ta ken in co nsider at ion o f and wit h t he inte nt t o p ro vide fo r t he anim al’sheal th and wel l-b ei ng.” Va. Code An

n. §3.2—6500 (West 2010) . Law enf orcem en t off i cers and trier s of

f ac t are b oun

d to th e p l ai n an d ordi n ar y mea n i n g of th e l an gu ag e of th e sta tute. Se e Larson , 379 Ill . App. 3d at 650 (citin g Pierce , 226 Il

l . 2 d at 476 , c iti

ng Pack , 224 Il l . 2d at 14 7). Here , t he plain and ordin ary m eani ng of the statut e expl

ic itl y de notes defen

dant’s conduct as i nhum ane. De f en da n t’s con du ct l acke d c on si

dera ti on an d c om pa ss i on f or c at A 20 90 57 , i n th at i t depriv ed the cat of sani

tary l iv in g c on di ti ons , fr ee o f diseas e. Eve n unde r t he de fini t ions u sed by ot her states , d efen

dan t’s con du ct w oul

d b e ex pl i ci tl y con si dere d i n h um an e i n th at sh e f

ai l ed to provide cat A209057 wi

th sani tary sh el ter and fai le d to consider

cat A209 057 ’s hea lth and well-b ei ng.No. 2—09—0404

-11-

Under t he pl ain an d o r di na ry meani ng of th e statu te, l aw en f orc em en t of f i cersar e p rov

i de d w i th
ex plic it standards t o ap ply t he law in a n o nd isc r iminat o ry mann er . De fen da nt ’s co nd uc t falls wit hin t he sta tutor y pr osc ri pti on , a n d th ussh e m ay b e p ros ecute d u

n der the s tatu

te in harm ony w ith due process. See Larson , 379 Ill . App. 3d at 651 (citin g Izzo , 195 Il

l . 2d at 11 3). We m us t pr es um e th at th e statu te is co nst itu t ional and defend ant bears the burden to establi sh
a con sti tution al vi ola tion
. Boand, 362 Ill . App. 3d at 138-39 (c iting Malchow , 193 Il l . 2d at 41 8). De f en da n t, her e, failed t o s at isfy this bur den. Th us , w e c on cl

ud e th at, as appl ie d here, secti on 3(d) of the Act is not unconst itutionall y v oid for vagueness. Defend ant next contends that the Stat e fai le d to prove bey

ond a reasonabl

e doubt that defend ant di

d n ot prov i de

h um an e c ar e a n d tr ea tm en t to ca t A20 90 57 . Th

e S tate co unt er s t hat t he evi dence adduc ed at tri al su f f i ci en tl y prov ed be y on d a rea son ab l e doub

t th at def en da n t f ai l ed to provide h uma ne care an

d treat me nt to cat A209057. We must determ i ne “w hether th e rec ordev ide nc e c o uld r ea so na bly su pp o r t a fin din g o f gu ilt bey ond a reas onab l e doubt.” (Intern al quotati on m

arks omi tted.) People

v. Cunningham , 21 2 I ll. 2d 274, 278 (2004). To determi ne wh ether the evi

dence adduce d at t he benc h t rial pr ove d beyo nd
a reasonabl

e doubt that defendan

t faile d to provide h

uma ne care an

d treat me nt to cat A209057, we viewt he evide nce in t he light most favo ra ble to t he pr os ecu t ion. See Cunningham , 212 Ill . 2d at 280. We de t er mine

that t he ev

ide nce adduced

at t rial was sufficient t o p ro ve beyo nd a r eas ona ble do ubt that defenda

nt fai le d to provide h

uma ne care an

d treat me nt to cat A209057. In the c urren t ma tter, the trial

evi den ce showe d tha

t 87 catswere

removed from defendant’s two-b ed room resi dence. Man

y of the cats had up per re spi rato ry tract in

fections, in

cl udin g cat A209057. T es ti m ony

at t rial refl ected that cat A209057 was “ severel y i nf ected” with an

upperNo. 2—09—0404

-12-

resp i ratory t ra ct infect ion and had t o be eut hanized . G ambrel t est ifi ed t hat no mo re t han five c ats sho uld be ke pt in one re si dence to ensure a h eal thy e nvi ronmen t for the ani

ma ls . He testifi

ed that upper re sp i

ra tory tra ct i n f ec ti on s c an

con ti n ue ci rc ul ati n g, b ei n g r ep ea ted l y pa ss ed f rom ca t to ca t, so th at, i n an ov ercrowded

en v i ron men t, n on e of th e c ats ca n e ve rr ec o ve r . He r e, it ca n be r ea so na bly in ferred t hat defend ant maintained an unhe althy envir onment fo rca t A2 09 05 7 in whi ch i t contr acted
a seve re upp er re spira t or y tr act infect ion. See Cunningham , 21 2 I ll. 2d at 280 (t he requi remen t t hat
a reviewi ng court must view the evi dence i n the l igh t most favorabl

e to t he prosecution, when det er mini ng sufficiency of t he ev ide nc e t o co nvic t , inc lud es allo win g a ll rea son ab l e i nf ere nc esf rom t he record

in fav or o f the prosecution). In the pres ent ma tt er, defen

dant fai le d to prot ect her pet, cat A2 09 05 7, fr o m adisease

that would have been

both preventabl

e and treatabl e had sh

e not all owed
an ex cess of 80 s

tray cats i nto her reside

nce. Furtherm ore, de f en da nt’ s c ond uc t of cal ling the animal cont ro l office and aut hor izing t he ani ma l co nt ro l facili

t y to re move and t ake cus t od y of all 87 c at s indicat es t hat she w as a war e t hat she
was unab le

to provide

any o f the cats with ade quate hum ane care an

d treat me nt. We note that de f en da n t sp ec i f i ca l l y re l i n qui sh ed cu sto dy of ca t A20 90 57 to t he faci

li ty, i ndicatin g that she knew that ca t A2 09 05 7 w as living in in hum ane conditions. Here, de f en da nt rec ogn ize d that s he

coul d n ot provide hu man e c ar e t o ca t A2 09 05 7 a nd t o o k a ct io n t o sa ve t he an imal fr o m he rinabilit y t o pr o pe r ly
care f or it. W hi l e i t ap pe ars unf ortun atetha t the au thor i ti esch ose to pros ecutehe

r f orthose effort s, and we note that t he State’s conduct serves as a deterrent t o ot hers consi derin g peacef ul l y re linquishing

pe ts f or w h i ch th ey ca n n ot prov i de

adeq ua te car e, defend ant ’s aw ar enes s t hat she was un ab le to provide h

uma ne care an

d treat me nt to cat A209057 ca

n b e i nf erred f rom he r de ci si on to releasehe rpe t t o t he an imal co nt r o l au t ho r it y. See Cunningham , 212 Ill. 2d at 280 (t he r equ irementNo. 2—09—0404

-13-

that a revie

win g court mus

t view the evi dence in the li ght most fav

orable to the prosecution, when det er mini ng sufficiency of t he ev ide nc e t o co nvic t , inc lud es allo win g a ll rea son ab l e i nf ere nc esf rom t he record i

n f av or of th e prose cution). Th us, w e concl

ude that the evi dence adduce d at tr ia l was su ff icient to pr ov e b ey

on d a re as on ab l e doub

t th at def en da n t f ai l ed to provi de

ca t A20 90 57 wi

th h um an e c ar e a n d tr ea tmen t. Defendant’s third contention is that t he trial

court erred when i

t calcul ated the im

posedfi nes and t hus t hos e fines sho uld be reduced. Specif ic al ly , defen dant argues thatthe

tri al cou rt’ s orde r f

or fi nes, f ees , and costs m

ust b e redu

ced b y $14. She ass erts that, because her ot her f in es tot al ed $34,
o nly a $10 crim

in al /traffi c surcharge an

d a $4 vic t im’s
- fun d a ss es sme nt we r e s t at ut o r ily authorized. The State responds that defendan t’s fi nes were properl

y c al cul ated. A l thou g h this is sue was n

ot rais ed by

defen dant’s trial

counsel in a m ot ion to reconsi der sent ence , d efenda nt asserts t hat, because t he amo unt s impos ed w er e no t st at ut or ily aut hor ized, t he order is void. See People v. Dobbs , 35 3 I ll. App. 3d 817, 830 (2004). A void order may be attacked at an y tim e. People v. Thompson , 209 Il l . 2 d 19, 27 (20 04). Be caus e the question of statutory au thor iza ti on presents a m

atter of law, our review

is de novo
. People v. Robinson , 172 Ill . 2d 452, 457 (1 996). In t he pr es en t mat t er , t he fine s t ha t de fen da nt ar gu es we r e imp rop erl y ca l cul ate d a reb oth determi ned by referen ce to t he amo unt o f ot her f in es. See 725 ILCS 240/10(b) (Wes t 2008) (r equ iring an

“ addi ti on al pen al ty of $4 f oreach $40, o r fraction thereo f, of f in e im posed”) ; 730 ILCS 5/5—9—1(c) (West 2008) (requiri ng an “addi tional penal ty of $10 f

or each$40, o r fr ac t io n t her eo f, of f i ne i m posed ”).No. 2—09—0404

-14-

Defend ant bases

her argum

ent on her cl

ai m that her otherfines to t aled $ 34; t hus, acc or ding to de fen da nt , she sho uld ha ve be en as se ss ed o nly a $ 10 cr iminal/ t r affic surcharge and a $4 victim ’sfundassessm

ent. T he record reflects t hat defendant was a ssesse d a $34 ci rcuit-cl erk fi

ne, a $10
men tal -he al th-court fee, an d a $10 chi

ld-adv ocacy f ee. The l atter two ass essmen

ts, howe ver, arealso considered

fi nes, gi vi ng def endan t a to talo f $5 4 in ot her f

in es. See People v. Graves , 235 Ill . 2d 244, 248-54 (20 09) (de te rmini

ng t hat the mental-hea lth-c ou rt fee co nstit ut ed a fine); People v. Jones , 397 Ill . App. 3d 651, 660 -6 1 ( 200 9) (d et er mini ng tha t, pu rs ua nt to Graves , the chi

ld-adv ocacy f ee was a f i ne f or purpose s of

cal cul ati ng th e vi cti m ’s -f und ass essmen

t). Ther ef ore , pu rs ua n t to sec t ion 1 0( b) of the Vi olen t Crim e Victim s As si stance

Act (725 IL CS 2 40/ 10( b) ( We st 2 008 )) a nd se cti on 5—9 —1( c) of the Un i f i ed Code of Corr ections (730 ILCS 5/5—9—1( c) (West 200 8) ), defend ant was to be ass essed

$8 f ora victim’ s-fund assessm ent and $20 for a cr im

in al/traffi c surcharge. T hus, we concl ude that defen

dant’s f in es were properly

cal cul ated. For t he fo rg oing re aso ns, w e affirm the judg ment of the ci rcui t court o f Win ne ba go Co un t y. Af fi rmed.