from the Circuit Court of Will County, No. 10-CF-2009; the
Hon. Daniel J. Rozak, Judge, presiding
Michael J. Pelletier and Andrew J. Boyd, of State Appellate
Defender's Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.
Glasgow, State's Attorney, of Joliet (Thomas D. Arado, of
State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of
counsel), for the People.
JUSTICE WRIGHT delivered the judgment of the court, with
opinion. Justices McDade and Schmidt concurred in the
judgment and opinion.
1 Defendant entered a guilty plea to the offense of
aggravated domestic battery. Accordingly, the trial court
sentenced defendant to four years of imprisonment on November
2, 2010. Four years later, on August 25, 2014, defendant
filed a pro se petition for relief from judgment.
The State filed a motion to dismiss which the trial court
granted. Defendant appeals the dismissal of his petition.
3 Matthew Ramones (defendant) pleaded guilty to aggravated
domestic battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3.2(a)(2) (West 2010)). On
November 2, 2010, the trial court sentenced defendant to four
years of imprisonment and ordered defendant to pay costs. The
record contains a "4th Revised Criminal Cost Sheet"
(Cost Sheet) dated November 2, 2010.
4 The Cost Sheet contains a $50 "court systems fee"
and a $200 "DNA analysis fee, " along with other
financial charges that have not been contested in this
5 The record reveals defendant did not file a posttrial
motion or bring any monetary concerns to the trial
court's attention after sentencing. In the trial court,
defendant did not make any application requesting the $5
per diem credit to offset fines. Similarly, after
the sentencing order was entered, defendant did not raise a
timely challenge to any of the amounts reflected in the Cost
6 Four years later, on August 25, 2014, defendant filed a
pro se petition for relief from judgment (petition)
pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure but did not contest
any monetary issues in the petition. 735 ILCS 5/2-1401(f)
(West 2014). Defendant's petition was limited to due
process violations affecting his conviction.
7 The State filed a combined motion to dismiss
defendant's petition pursuant to sections 2-301, 2-615,
and 2-619(a)(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS
5/2-301, 2-615, 2-619(a)(5) (West 2014)), and Illinois
Supreme Court Rule 103(b) (eff. July 1, 2007). The
State's combined motion sought dismissal on the grounds
that defendant's petition was untimely, service was
improper, and the petition failed to state a cause of action.
The trial court granted the State's motion to dismiss on
September 30, 2014, on jurisdictional grounds, citing lack of
proper service. Defendant appeals.
9 In this appeal, defendant does not challenge the trial
court's 2014 decision dismissing defendant's
petition. Hence, the trial court's ...