from the Circuit Court of the 10th Judicial Circuit, Peoria
County, Illinois, Circuit No. 12-CF-115 Honorable Kevin
Lyons, Judge, Presiding.
JUSTICE SCHMIDT delivered the judgment of the court, with
opinion. Justices Carter and Lytton concurred in the judgment
1 Defendant, Donald Jerome Wade, argues on appeal that the
circuit clerk improperly assessed fines against him and asks
that this cause be remanded for proper entry of an order of
enumerated costs. This court originally and unanimously
vacated the fines improperly imposed by the clerk. With one
dissent, this court remanded to have the trial court impose
mandatory fines. Defendant filed a petition for rehearing
asking this court to adopt the dissent's position that we
should not remand for imposition of the void fines. We
granted rehearing. The State answered, agreeing with
defendant that there should be no remand. We vacate the fines
imposed by the circuit clerk, but do not remand for the
reimposition of said fines by the trial court.
3 Defendant pled guilty to retail theft (720 ILCS
5/16-25(a)(1) (West 2012)). The court sentenced defendant to
a term of 5½ years' imprisonment. The circuit
court ordered that defendant be given credit for time served
in custody prior to sentencing from February 2 to February 4,
2012, and from December 31, 2012, to January 4, 2013. The
circuit court imposed no fines, but ordered that a judgment
for costs be entered against defendant.
4 Defense counsel filed a motion to reconsider sentence but
did not file a Rule 604(d) certificate. Ill. S.Ct. R. 604(d)
(eff. Feb. 6, 2013). The circuit court denied the motion.
Defendant filed a notice of appeal on July 23, 2013.
5 A sheet entitled "History Payments" appears in
the record. A certification on the payments sheet is dated
October 25, 2013, is signed by a deputy circuit clerk, and
bears the seal of the circuit court of Peoria County. The
payments sheet contains the correct case number but lists the
date as December 31, 1994. The payments sheet lists the total
assessments as $921.50. The sheet indicated that no money was
currently owing. Each individual assessment is identified by
a four-letter code. The assessments and corresponding codes
included: (1) $100 CLRK; (2) $10 MAIL; (3) $30 STAT; (4) $25
CRTP; (5) $0.25 CADM; (6) $10 DRGO; (7) $15 SPMB; (8) $15
AUTO; (9) $2 STAU; (10) $100 VIOL; (11) $50 CRTU; (12) $10
CADF; (13) $447 SHER; (14) $10 PROP; (15) $15 DOCS; (16) $10
SAOJ; (17) $10 SPSF; (18) $10 MEDI; (19) $4.75 DCRT; (20) $15
SPOA; and (21) $32.50 SCHG.
6 On appeal, we remanded this cause to the circuit court for
further postplea proceedings, including the filing of a new
postplea motion and a Rule 604(d) certificate. People v.
Wade, No. 3-13-0542 (Feb. 9, 2015) (dispositional
7 On remand, defendant filed a motion to withdraw guilty
plea, and a motion to reconsider sentence. Defendant's
motion to reconsider sentence raised no issue with the
monetary assessments in the payments sheet. Defense counsel
also filed a Rule 604(d) certificate. The circuit court
denied defendant's motions.
9 In the instant appeal, defendant initially argued that this
cause must be remanded for a proper entry of an order of
enumerated fines and fees. Defendant cited four reasons why
remand is necessary: (1) the circuit clerk imposed certain
fines; (2) the payments sheet inexplicably bears a date of
December 31, 1994; (3) the authorization of some of the
assessments is not clear from the record; and (4) defendant
did not receive credit for the time he spent in presentence
custody. We issued an opinion with a partial dissent,
granting the relief requested. Defendant filed a petition for
rehearing asking this court to adopt the dissent's view
that we are without authority to remand for the imposition of
fines. We granted rehearing. The State concedes the issue.
Because we find that some of the assessments imposed by the
circuit clerk were fines and therefore void, we vacate said
fines. We are without authority, however, to remand for the
trial court to do what it should have done at sentencing:
impose mandatory fines. See Ill. S.Ct. R. 615(b)(4);
People v. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916.
10 "Because the imposition of a fine is a judicial act,
and the circuit clerk has no authority to levy fines, any
fines imposed by the circuit clerk are void from their
inception." People v. Larue, 2014 IL App (4th)
120595, ¶ 56; see also People v. Hible, 2016 IL
App (4th) 131096, ¶¶ 9-11. Fines and fees are
distinct types of assessments. Hible, 2016 IL App
(4th) 131096, ¶ 14. "A fee is a charge designed to
recoup the State's expenses while a fine ' "is a
pecuniary punishment imposed as part of a sentence on a
person convicted of a criminal offense." ' "
Id. (quoting People v. Warren, 2014 IL App
(4th) 120721, ¶ 86, quoting People v. Graves,
235 Ill.2d 244, 250 (2009)). While the circuit clerk may levy
fees, only the trial court may impose fines on a defendant.
11 Fines are part of a criminal sentence. People v.
Graves, 235 Ill.2d 244, 250 (2009). In
Castleberry, our supreme court held that the
appellate court may not increase a sentence on appeal, even
one that is illegally low. Castleberry, 2015 IL
116916, ¶ 26. The Castleberry court concluded
that the only ...