Court Opinion

ID: 9839657
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-13 18:05:01.259837+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:38:58.424201
License: Public Domain

NOTICE               2023 IL App (4th) 221015-U
 This Order was filed under
                                                                                  FILED
 Supreme Court Rule 23 and is            NO. 4-22-1015                       September 13, 2023
 not precedent except in the                                                     Carla Bender
 limited circumstances allowed                                               4th District Appellate
                                 IN THE APPELLATE COURT                             Court, IL
 under Rule 23(e)(1).
                                         OF ILLINOIS

                                      FOURTH DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,                        )      Appeal from the
           Plaintiff-Appellee,                              )      Circuit Court of
           v.                                               )      Lee County
BRIAN T. SHUMACK,                                           )      No. 05CF238
           Defendant-Appellant.                             )
                                                            )      Honorable
                                                            )      Jacquelyn D. Ackert,
                                                            )      Judge Presiding.

                JUSTICE ZENOFF delivered the judgment of the court.
                Justices Turner and Cavanagh concurred in the judgment.

                                            ORDER

¶1     Held: The appellate court reversed the trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion to
             correct an error in the application of per diem credit against fines and remanded to
             the trial court for application of the credit.

¶2              In September 2022, defendant, Brian T. Shumack, filed a motion seeking per diem

credit for time spent in presentence custody against his “Youth Diversion” fee under section 110-

14(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Code) (725 ILCS 5/110-14(a) (West 2020)).

The trial court denied defendant’s motion. Defendant appeals, arguing the court erred in finding

none of the assessments imposed were fines eligible for per diem credit. For the reasons that

follow, we reverse the court’s judgment and remand for entry of the credit against defendant’s

“Youth Diversion” fee.

¶3                                     I. BACKGROUND
¶4             Following a January 2006 bench trial, defendant was convicted of burglary (720

ILCS 5/19-1(a) (West 2004)) and criminal damage to property (720 ILCS 5/21-1(1)(a) (West

2004)), sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment, and ordered to pay $1280 restitution. According to

the sentencing order, defendant spent 182 days in presentence custody. On direct appeal,

defendant challenged his prison sentence and the restitution amount. The appellate court

affirmed. People v. Shumack, No. 2-06-0067 (2007) (unpublished order under Supreme Court

Rule 23).

¶5             On September 26, 2022, defendant filed a pro se “Motion for $5-Per-Day Credit

Against Fines Pursuant to Section 725 ILCS 5/110-14.” In his motion, defendant requested

correction of an error in the application of per diem credit against his fines. He explained that he

wrote to the circuit court clerk asking “if there were any outstanding fines, fees, [or] court dates,”

and the clerk responded with an itemized list of fines and fees totaling $565.50. Defendant

attached the list he received from the circuit court clerk to his motion. The list included a $5 fee

for “Youth Diversion.”

¶6             On November 3, 2022, the trial court denied defendant’s motion, determining that

the challenged amounts were not fines and, therefore, not subject to the $5-per-day credit against

fines for his time spent in presentence custody under section 110-14 of the Code (725 ILCS

5/110-14 (West 2006)). Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal on November 18, 2022.

¶7             This appeal followed.

¶8                                         II. ANALYSIS

¶9                                         A. Jurisdiction

¶ 10           On appeal, defendant acknowledges his pro se motion did not include a citation to

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 472(a)(2) (eff. May 17, 2019), providing that trial courts retain

                                                -2-
jurisdiction in criminal cases to correct certain sentencing errors at any time following judgment,

including “[e]rrors in the application of per diem credit against fines.” Nonetheless, defendant

asserts this court should treat his motion as one filed under Rule 472, because the relief he

requests is expressly authorized by the rule and the substance of the motion should control over

its form. Defendant contends the trial court had jurisdiction to consider his motion under Rule

472 and this court has jurisdiction to consider his appeal from the final judgment denying his

motion. The State does not challenge defendant’s request for this court to treat his motion as a

Rule 472 motion for per diem credit against his fines.

¶ 11           We agree that defendant’s motion should be treated as a motion filed under Rule

472. The rule provides for correction of errors in the application of per diem credit on the motion

of a party at any time following judgment. Ill. S. Ct. R. 472(a)(2) (eff. May 17, 2019). Defendant

requested that relief in his motion. Thus, although defendant did not expressly cite the rule in his

motion, he clearly asked for the relief provided by the rule.

¶ 12           Rule 472 further states that a trial court’s ruling on a motion “constitutes a final

judgment on a justiciable matter and is subject to appeal in accordance with Supreme Court Rule

303.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 472(b) (eff. May 17, 2019). Rule 303 provides, in pertinent part, that a notice

of appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of the final judgment. Ill. S. Ct. R. 303(a)(1)

(eff. July 1, 2017). Defendant filed his notice of appeal within 30 days following the trial court’s

denial of his Rule 472 motion. Accordingly, this court has jurisdiction to consider his appeal

from the denial of his motion for per diem credit against his fines.

¶ 13                         B. Credit Against “Youth Diversion” Fee

¶ 14           Initially, we note that while defendant asked for credit against several fees and

assessments in his motion, he only claims on appeal that he is entitled to per diem credit against

                                                -3-
the $5 “Youth Diversion” fee. Defendant contends the “Youth Diversion” fee has been held to be

a fine subject to per diem credit and the trial court erred in denying his motion for credit against

the fine. Accordingly, defendant requests reversal of the court’s denial of his motion and remand

for entry of an order awarding the $5 credit against his “Youth Diversion” fee.

¶ 15           The State responds that the legislature enacted the Criminal and Traffic

Assessment Act (Act) (Pub. Act 100-987 (eff. July 1, 2019) (adding 705 ILCS 135/1-5)) defining

a “fine” as both “pecuniary punishment for a conviction” and “ordered by a court of law.” The

State argues defendant’s motion for credit against his fines, filed on September 26, 2022, should

be reviewed in accordance with the Act’s definition of a fine. The State maintains that, under the

Act, the “Youth Diversion” fee is more in the nature of a scheduled cost assessment and the

record does not show it was ordered by a court of law as a pecuniary punishment. The State,

therefore, concludes that the trial court correctly denied defendant’s motion because the “Youth

Diversion” fee is not a fine subject to per diem credit under section 110-14 of the Code (725

ILCS 5/110-14 (West 2006)).

¶ 16           Defendant replies that applying the Act retroactively to redefine the “Youth

Diversion” fee would violate ex post facto principles because it would be disadvantageous to him

and impose an additional burden. Defendant contends the applicable law requires reversal of the

trial court’s decision and remand for entry of an order awarding the $5 credit.

¶ 17           We agree with defendant. The applicable version of section 110-14(a) provides

that “[a]ny person incarcerated on a bailable offense who does not supply bail and against whom

a fine is levied on conviction of such offense shall be allowed a credit of $5 for each day so

incarcerated upon application of the defendant.” 725 ILCS 5/110-14(a) (West 2006). Thus, a

defendant is entitled to a $5-per-day credit for time served in presentence custody against a fine.

                                                -4-
Our supreme court has held the “Youth Diversion” fee is a fine. People v. Graves, 235 Ill. 2d

244, 255 (2009) (stating the $5 youth diversion/peer court fee, although labeled as a fee, is “in

fact [a] fine[ ], which [is] punitive in nature”).

¶ 18            The State does not explain why the Act, effective July 1, 2019, should be applied

retroactively to this fine imposed on defendant for an offense committed in 2005, or cite any case

law in support of its contention that the “Youth Diversion” fee should be considered an

assessment. The State simply asserts, without any support or analysis, that the Act’s definition of

a fine should control because defendant’s motion was filed in 2022. Illinois Supreme Court Rule

341(h)(7) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020) requires an appellant’s brief to include “[a]rgument, which shall

contain the contentions of the appellant and the reasons therefor, with citation of the authorities

and the pages of the record relied on.” Rule 341(h)(7) also applies to appellee briefs. Ill. S. Ct. R.

341(i) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020). Ordinarily, the State’s failure to cite authority or articulate an argument

in support of its claim that the Act applies retroactively here would result in forfeiture of the

argument on appeal. See People v. Pope, 2020 IL App (4th) 180773, ¶ 75.

¶ 19            Notwithstanding any forfeiture, it is far from clear that application of the Act

would support a decision that the “Youth Diversion” fee is now an assessment. In any case, as

defendant argues, applying the Act retroactively to reach that result would present ex post facto

concerns. The ex post facto clauses of the United States Constitution prohibit retroactive

application of a law inflicting greater punishment than the law in effect when an offense was

committed. People v. Cornelius, 213 Ill. 2d 178, 207 (2004). “A law is considered ex post facto if

it is both retroactive and disadvantageous to the defendant.” Cornelius, 213 Ill. 2d at 207. A

defendant is disadvantaged by a law if it increases the punishment for a previously committed

offense. Cornelius, 213 Ill. 2d at 207. A fine is a punishment imposed as part of a criminal

                                                     -5-
sentence and is subject to the prohibition against ex post facto laws. People v. Prince, 371 Ill.

App. 3d 878, 880 (2007).

¶ 20           Here, defendant would be disadvantaged by retroactive application of the Act to

hold the “Youth Diversion” fee is now an assessment because he would no longer be entitled to

credit against the fee for time spent in presentence custody. See Prince, 371 Ill. App. 3d at 881

(stating denial of the credit provided by section 110-14 against a defendant’s fines, based on

retroactive application of an amendment to the statute, would increase the punishment for a

previously committed offense). Accordingly, even if application of the Act’s definition of a

“fine” would result in redefining the “Youth Diversion” fee, that result would violate

ex post facto principles. In sum, the Act cannot be applied retroactively to redefine the “Youth

Diversion” fee imposed on defendant for an offense committed in 2005.

¶ 21           In accordance with our supreme court’s decision in Graves, we conclude that the

“Youth Diversion” fee imposed on defendant is, in fact, a fine. Graves, 235 Ill. 2d at 255.

Defendant is entitled to a $5-per-day credit for time served in presentence custody against his

fines. 725 ILCS 5/110-14(a) (West 2006). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s denial of

defendant’s motion seeking that credit and remand to the court for application of the $5 credit to

his “Youth Diversion” fee.

¶ 22                                    III. CONCLUSION

¶ 23           For the reasons stated, we reverse the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to

correct an error in the application of per diem credit against his fines and remand for entry of an

order awarding the credit against his “Youth Diversion” fee.

¶ 24           Reversed and remanded.

                                                -6-