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. Ramones

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Third District

December 8, 2016

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MATTHEW RAMONES, Defendant-Appellant.

         Appeal 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.

          James Glasgow, State's Attorney, of Joliet (Thomas D. Arado, of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.

          Panel JUSTICE WRIGHT delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices McDade and Schmidt concurred in the judgment and opinion.

          OPINION

          WRIGHT JUSTICE.

         ¶ 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.

         ¶ 2 FACTS

         ¶ 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 appeal.

         ¶ 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 Sheet.

         ¶ 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.

         ¶ 8 ANALYSIS

         ¶ 9 In this appeal, defendant does not challenge the trial court's 2014 decision dismissing defendant's petition. Hence, the trial court's ...


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.