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. Glass

Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, First Division

February 14, 2017

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ROBERT GLASS, Defendant-Appellant.

         Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No. 14 CR 11358 Honorable Vincent M. Gaughan, Judge Presiding.

          JUSTICE MIKVA delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Presiding Justice Connors and Justice Harris concurred in the judgment and opinion

          OPINION

          MIKVA JUSTICE

         ¶ 1 Following a jury trial, defendant Robert Glass was convicted of delivery of a controlled substance (720 ILCS 570/401(c)(1) (West 2014)) and sentenced to five years' imprisonment. On appeal, Mr. Glass contends that the $500 public defender reimbursement fee assessed against him must be vacated because no hearing was held to determine his ability to pay. He further challenges various fines, fees, and costs imposed by the trial court. We vacate the challenged fines and fees; modify the fines, fees, and costs order; and remand for a second hearing on whether Mr. Glass should be required to reimburse any part of the cost of his public defender and, if so, what amount.

         ¶ 2 BACKGROUND

         ¶ 3 Mr. Glass was charged with delivery of a controlled substance. He was appointed a public defender. At trial, three officers testified and established that, on June 10, 2014, Mr. Glass sold three bags of white powder, "suspect heroin," to an undercover officer in exchange for $30 in prerecorded funds near 3421 West Lake Street in Chicago. A "drug chemist" testified the powder weighed 1.1 grams and tested positive for heroin. The jury found Mr. Glass guilty of delivery of a controlled substance, and the case proceeded to sentencing.

         ¶ 4 The trial court sentenced Mr. Glass to five years' imprisonment on October 9, 2014. It imposed fines and fees totaling $2839 and credited Mr. Glass with 122 days served. It denied Mr. Glass's posttrial motions and admonished him of his rights on appeal. The State filed a motion for reimbursement of funds. The following was the entire exchange regarding that motion:

"THE COURT: [Defense counsel], how many times have you appeared on this?
DEFENSE COUNSEL: Eight times, your honor.
THE COURT: And plus it was a jury trial. $500 would be appropriate." Mr. Glass timely appealed.

         ¶ 5 ANALYSIS

         ¶ 6 A. Public Defender Fee

         ¶ 7 On appeal, Mr. Glass contends that the trial court improperly assessed the $500 public defender reimbursement fee without holding a hearing to determine his ability to pay and thus the fee should be vacated. The State concedes that the trial court did not conduct a sufficient hearing but argues that we should remand the matter for a hearing on Mr. Glass's ability to pay any part of this fee. Mr. Glass failed to object to the imposition of the public defender fee at his sentencing hearing but argues, and we agree, that this issue is not subject to forfeiture. See People v. Love, 177 Ill. 2d 550');">177 Ill. 2d 550, 564 (1997); see also People v. Carreon, 2011 IL App (2d) 100391, ¶ 11 (forfeiture rule inappropriate where trial court imposed public defender reimbursement fee "without following the appropriate procedural requirements").

         ¶ 8 Pursuant to section 113-3.1 of the Illinois Code of Criminal Procedure (Code), the trial court may order a defendant to pay a reasonable sum, up to a statutory maximum, to reimburse the county or State for representation by appointed counsel, the amount of which is to be determined at a hearing where the court must consider the defendant's financial circumstances. 725 ILCS 5/113-3.1 (West 2014). Compliance with the statute requires the trial court to give the defendant notice that it is considering imposing the fee and an opportunity to present evidence regarding the defendant's ability to pay. People v. Somers, 2013 IL 114054, ¶ 14. The statute requires that the "hearing shall be conducted on the court's own motion or on motion of the State's Attorney at any time after the appointment of counsel but no later than 90 days after the entry of a final order disposing of the case at the trial level." 725 ILCS 5/113-3.1(a) (West 2014). Our supreme court made clear in Love that, to comply with section 113-3.1(a), "[t]he hearing must focus on ...


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.