Opinion ID: 2048220
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Assessment Controlled Substance

Text: We next address the $500 Assessment Controlled Substance. This charge, imposed pursuant to section 411.2(a) of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act (720 ILCS 570/411.2(a) (West 2004)), is commonly referred to as a drug assessment. Section 411.2 provides in relevant part as follows: (a) Every person convicted of a violation of this Act, and every person placed on probation, conditional discharge, supervision or probation under Section 410 of this Act, shall be assessed for each offense a sum fixed at:    (4) $500 for a Class 3 or Class 4 felony;    (e) A defendant who has been ordered to pay an assessment may petition the court to convert all or part of the assessment into court-approved public or community service. One hour of public or community service shall be equivalent to $4 of assessment. The performance of this public or community service shall be a condition of the probation, conditional discharge or supervision and shall be in addition to the performance of any other period of public or community service ordered by the court or required by law. (f) The court may suspend the collection of the assessment imposed under this Section; provided the defendant agrees to enter a substance abuse intervention or treatment program approved by the court   .    Upon successful completion of the program, the defendant may apply to the court to reduce the assessment imposed under this Section by any amount actually paid by the defendant for his participation in the program. The court shall not reduce the penalty under this subsection unless the defendant establishes to the satisfaction of the court that he has successfully completed the intervention or treatment program   . (Emphasis added.) 720 ILCS 570/411.2(a), (e), (f) (West 2004). Our appellate court has consistently concluded that a section 411.2 drug assessment is a fine, not a fee, and thus is subject to offset by presentencing incarceration credit. See, e.g., People v. Youngblood, 365 Ill.App.3d 210, 214-15, 302 Ill. Dec. 631, 849 N.E.2d 423 (2006); People v. McNeal, 364 Ill.App.3d 867, 873-74, 301 Ill.Dec. 832, 847 N.E.2d 842 (2006); Fort, 362 Ill.App.3d at 5-8, 298 Ill.Dec. 417, 839 N.E.2d 1064 (and cases cited therein); People v. Gathing, 334 Ill.App.3d 617, 620, 268 Ill.Dec. 229, 778 N.E.2d 215 (2002); People v. Brown, 242 Ill.App.3d 465, 466, 182 Ill.Dec. 907, 610 N.E.2d 776 (1993). We agree with these decisions. Fort is instructive on this point. There, the appellate court noted that by labeling the charge an assessment, the legislature did not clearly indicate whether the charge was in the nature of a fine, subject to offset, or in the nature of a fee. However, the legislature did refer to the charge as a penalty in subsection (f), a term which denotes a fine, not a fee. Fort, 362 Ill.App.3d at 7, 298 Ill.Dec. 417, 839 N.E.2d 1064. Moreover, assuming that the statute was ambiguous, Fort noted that the legislative history characterized the charge as a fine: Referring to the proposed section 411.2, Senator Cullerton asked: `I'm just curious, though, ifdoes this reallocate money which is now being sent somewhere, or does it purport to increase the fines for people who are charged with drug offenses?' (Emphasis added.) Senator Barkhausen, a sponsor of the bill, answered: `Yes, it's an increase. It's a new fine; although, we had amended the bill a second time through, and I believe the provisions are here againI was just looking for themto give the court some discretion to require community service work for those who can't pay fines. But this is new money. It's not a reallocation of any old money.' (Emphases added.) Fort, 362 Ill. App.3d at 7, 298 Ill.Dec. 417, 839 N.E.2d 1064, quoting 87th Ill. Gen. Assem., Senate Proceedings, July 18, 1991, at 186-87 (statements of Senators Cullerton and Barkhausen). Finally, Fort noted that although the drug assessment had been construed as a fine for several years, and the legislature had numerous times amended section 411.2, the legislature had never taken action to override the unanimous conclusion that the drug assessment was subject to offset. This fact lends support to the conclusion that the legislature acquiesced in the earlier decisions, and constitutes a strong reason to adhere to the prior decisions. Fort, 362 Ill.App.3d at 8, 298 Ill.Dec. 417, 839 N.E.2d 1064 (quoting Agnew, 105 Ill.2d at 280, 85 Ill.Dec. 514, 473 N.E.2d 1319, and citing People ex rel. Department of Labor v. Tri State Tours, Inc., 342 Ill.App.3d 842, 847, 277 Ill.Dec. 322, 795 N.E.2d 990 (2003)). The State acknowledges the above authority. Indeed, the State admits in its brief to this court that the assessment is punitive in nature and its purpose is not related to compensating the state for the costs of criminal investigation and prosecution. However, the State argues that the legislature has the authority to exempt specific charges from the $5 credit allowed by section 110-14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and contends that the legislature did implicitly exempt the section 411.2 drug assessment by providing that the assessment could be reduced or removed if the defendant performed community service or participated in a substance abuse intervention or treatment program. See 720 ILCS 570/411.2(e), (f) (West 2004). The State argues that permitting a defendant to receive presentencing incarceration credit would violate the legislative intent to promote community service and drug treatment by providing that community service and drug treatment would be the only ways to reduce the drug assessment. We reject this argument. Nothing in the statute indicates that the legislature intended that community service and drug treatment would be the exclusive means to reduce a drug assessment. The notion that the legislature intended to preempt presentencing credit is dealt a severe blow by the fact that the presentencing credit is mandatory, whereas the reductions provided for in subsections (e) and (f) are discretionary. Compare 725 ILCS 5/110-14(a) (West 2004) (Any person    shall be allowed a credit of $ 5 for each day    (emphasis added)) with 720 ILCS 570/411.2(e) (West 2004) ([a] defendant    may petition the court to convert all or part of the assessment into court-approved public or community service (emphasis added)) and 720 ILCS 570/411.2(f) (West 2004) (The court may suspend the collection of the assessment imposed under this Section; provided the defendant agrees to enter a substance abuse intervention or treatment program approved by the court   .    Upon successful completion of the program, the defendant may apply to the court to reduce the assessment imposed under this Section by any amount actually paid by the defendant for his participation in the program (emphases added)). Moreover, the State provides no explanation why the legislature would have taken such a circuitous route of implicit preemption when it could simply have spelled out that the assessment was not subject to reduction for presentencing incarceration credit, as the legislature has done in numerous other statutes. See, e.g., 705 ILCS 105/27.6(b) (West 2004) (This additional fee of $100 shall not be considered a part of the fine for purposes of any reduction in the fine for time served either before or after sentencing); 705 ILCS 105/27.6(b-1) (West 2004) (This additional fee of $5 shall not be considered a part of the fine for purposes of any reduction in the fine for time served either before or after sentencing); 705 ILCS 105/27.6(c) (West 2004) (This additional fee of $100 shall not be considered a part of the fine for purposes of any reduction in the fine for time served either before or after sentencing); 705 ILCS 105/27.6(c-1) (West 2004) (This additional fee of $5 shall not be considered a part of the fine for purposes of any reduction in the fine for time served either before or after sentencing); 730 ILCS 5/5-9-1(c) (West 2004) (Such additional penalty shall not be considered a part of the fine for purposes of any reduction in the fine for time served either before or after sentencing); 730 ILCS 5/5-9-1(c-5) (West 2004) (This additional fee of $100 shall not be considered a part of the fine for purposes of any reduction in the fine for time served either before or after sentencing); 730 ILCS 5/5-9-1(c-7) (West 2004) (This additional fee of $5 shall not be considered a part of the fine for purposes of any reduction in the fine for time served either before or after sentencing); 730 ILCS 5/5-9-1.1(c) (West 2004) (This additional fee of $5 shall not be considered a part of the fine for purposes of any reduction in the fine for time served either before or after sentencing); 730 ILCS 5/5-9-1.6 (West 2004) (Such additional penalty shall not be considered a part of the fine for purposes of any reduction in the fine for time served either before or after sentencing); 730 ILCS 5/5-9-1.10 (West 2004) (This additional fee of $100 shall not be considered a part of the fine for purposes of any reduction in the fine for time served either before or after sentencing); 730 ILCS 5/5-9-1.11(a) (West 2004) (The additional penalty shall not be considered a part of the fine for purposes of any reduction in the fine for time served either before or after sentencing). Clearly the legislature knows how to provide that a particular charge is not to be subject to reduction by credit for presentencing (or postsentencing) incarceration, and the legislature did not do so with respect to the drug assessment. Further, the State's argument ignores the fact observed in Fort that the drug assessment has consistently been construed as a fine subject to reduction for presentencing incarceration, and the legislature has never amended the statute in any way so as to repudiate those holdings. This indicates legislative acquiescence in the construction accorded to the statute by the previous decisions. Agnew, 105 Ill.2d at 280, 85 Ill.Dec. 514, 473 N.E.2d 1319; Tri State Tours, Inc., 342 Ill.App.3d at 847, 277 Ill.Dec. 322, 795 N.E.2d 990. Accordingly, we agree with the appellate court that the drug assessment is subject to reduction by credit for presentencing incarceration pursuant to section 110-14(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (725 ILCS 5/110-14(a) (West 2004)).