Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Dunlap

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Fourth District

July 1, 2013

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RICHARD DUNLAP, Defendant-Appellant.

Held: [*]

Based on the record showing that defendant affirmatively acquiesced in the trial court’s assessment of a $400 reimbursement for the public defender who represented defendant at his trial, the appellate court found that defendant waived his argument that the trial court failed to consider his affidavit of financial condition.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Livingston County, No. 11-CF-82; the Hon. Jennifer H. Bauknecht, Judge, presiding.

Michael J. Pelletier, Karen Munoz, and John M. McCarthy, all of State Appeal Appellate Defender's Office, of Springfield, for appellant.

Thomas J. Brown, State's Attorney, of Pontiac (Patrick Delfino, Robert J. Biderman, and Denise M. Ambrose, all of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.

Justices Pope and Holder White concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION

STEIGMANN, PRESIDING JUSTICE

¶ 1 Following a June 2011 trial, a jury convicted defendant, Richard Dunlap, of (1) one count of aggravated battery to a police officer (720 ILCS 5/12-4(b)(18) (West 2010)) and (2) five counts of resisting arrest (720 ILCS 5/31-1(a) (West 2010)). In August 2011, the court sentenced defendant to four years in prison. As part of defendant's sentence, the court imposed a $400 reimbursement for court-appointed counsel pursuant to section 113-3.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/113-3.1 (West 2010)).

¶ 2 Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by ordering reimbursement because the court failed to consider his affidavit of financial condition as required by section 113-3.1(a) of the Code (725 ILCS 5/113-3.1(a) (West 2010)). Because we conclude that defendant affirmatively acquiesced to the court's imposition of the $400 reimbursement order, we affirm.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 Following a June 2011 trial, a jury convicted defendant of (1) one count of aggravated battery to a police officer (720 ILCS 5/12-4(b)(18) (West 2010)) and (2) five counts of resisting arrest (720 ILCS 5/31-1(a) (West 2010)).

¶ 5 In August 2011, the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing and sentenced defendant to four years in prison. After imposing the term of imprisonment, as well as various other fines and fees, the court addressed defendant as follows:

"THE COURT: Now, I also set this for hearing to determine whether or not to impose [an] assessment [for court-appointed counsel, ] and I have had an opportunity to review the [presentence investigation report (PSI)]. The purpose of this hearing is to determine what if any public defender assessment the Court should impose. The statute allows for anything from zero to $5, 000. There was a *** trial in this case; and you do have the ability to work although I understand you've been in jail for some time; but you've worked in the past. So I'm considering a $400 public defender assessment considering we had a ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.