People v. Vara

• Decision Date: 01 June 2018
• Docket Number: Docket No. 121823
• Citation: 425 Ill.Dec. 498,115 N.E.3d 53,2018 IL 121823
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Ricardo VARA, Appellee.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

2018 IL 121823

115 N.E.3d 53

425 Ill.Dec. 498

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellant,

v.Ricardo VARA, Appellee.

Docket No. 121823

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Opinion filed June 1, 2018

Rehearing denied September 24, 2018

JUSTICE FREEMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Following a bench trial in the circuit court of Stephenson County, defendant Ricardo Vara was convicted of child pornography ( 720 ILCS 5/11–20.1(a)(6)(vii) (West 2012) ). The circuit court sentenced defendant to serve a three-year term of imprisonment and imposed certain fines mandated by various statutory provisions. Thereafter, the clerk of the circuit court included several entries in the electronic accounts receivable record pertaining to defendant's conviction. Several of those data entries indicated that defendant was obligated to pay other mandatory fines not specified in the circuit court's judgment. On appeal, defendant challenged the data entries recorded by the circuit clerk that purported to assess additional fines not imposed by the circuit court. The appellate court vacated the challenged data entries and rejected the State's argument that the appellate court had authority to order imposition of the mandatory fines that were not imposed by the circuit court. 2016 IL App (2d) 140848, 412 Ill.Dec. 570, 76 N.E.3d 10. This court allowed the State's petition for leave to appeal. Ill. S. Ct. R. 315 (eff. Jan. 1, 2015). For the reasons that follow, we find that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review the clerk's recording of fines that were not ordered by the circuit court. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the appellate court and dismiss the appeal.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 After a bench trial, defendant was convicted of child pornography ( 720 ILCS 5/11–20.1(a)(6) (West 2012) ). At the sentencing hearing on August 8, 2014, the circuit court sentenced defendant on that conviction and on another conviction resulting from a separate prosecution. With regard to the child pornography conviction, the court ordered defendant to serve three years in prison and imposed the following mandatory fines: a $1000 child pornography fine (id. § 11–20.1(c) ), a $500 sex offender fine ( 730 ILCS 5/5–9–1.15 (West 2012) ), and a $500 additional child pornography fine (id. § 5–9–1.14).¹ The court also imposed a $200 fine that was described at the sentencing hearing as a "sheriff's office fine" but was referenced in the written sentencing order as a "sexual assault fine" (id. § 5–9–1.7).

¶ 4 Defendant filed a motion to reduce his sentence but did not dispute the validity of the fines imposed by the circuit court. Defendant's motion was denied, and he timely filed a notice of appeal on August 22, 2014. The record on appeal was filed in October 2014.

¶ 5 In April 2016, the appellate court granted defendant leave to supplement the record to include a document titled "payment status information," which bears the seal of the circuit court of Stephenson County. A certification on the payment status information sheet is signed by a deputy circuit clerk and is dated April 13, 2016, approximately 18 months after entry of the circuit court's final judgment. The payment status information sheet lists entries for fees charged to defendant as well as mandatory fines, several of which were not included in the circuit court's judgment. According to the payment status information sheet, the following fines and fees were charged to defendant: "Court" ($50), "Youth Diversion" ($5), "Violent Crime" ($100), "Lump Sum Surcharge" ($250), "Sexual Assault" ($200), "Sex Offender Regis" ($500), "Medical Costs" ($10), "State Police Ops" ($15), "Child Pornography" ($495), and "Clerk Op Deduction" ($5).

¶ 6 On appeal, defendant did not attack his conviction, prison sentence, or the monetary sanctions imposed by the circuit court. His sole contention was that the fine assessments that were detailed in the payment status information sheet but not referenced by the court were invalid and should be vacated. Defendant argued that, although the challenged fines were mandated by statute, they were void because the circuit clerk lacked the authority to levy fines. The State agreed that the fines purportedly assessed by the circuit clerk were invalid but requested that the appellate court either impose the mandatory fines or remand to the circuit court with instructions to do so.

¶ 7 The appellate court vacated the fines challenged by defendant and refused the State's request that it impose the fines or order the circuit court to do so on remand. 2016 IL App (2d) 140848, ¶¶ 8–10, 37, 412 Ill.Dec. 570, 76 N.E.3d 10. The appellate court explained that, pursuant to this court's decision in People v. Castleberry , 2015 IL 116916, 398 Ill.Dec. 22, 43 N.E.3d 932, it did not have authority to address the State's request for correction of a sentence that does not comply with the statutory requirements. 2016 IL App (2d) 140848, ¶¶ 25, 37, 412 Ill.Dec. 570, 76 N.E.3d 10.

¶ 8 The State appeals to this court.

¶ 9 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 10 In this court, the State attacks the appellate court's judgment on several grounds. First, the State contends that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review the circuit court clerk's recording of mandatory fines that were not included as part of the court's final judgment. In the alternative, the State asserts that, if the appellate court had jurisdiction, that court had authority to impose the mandatory fines or remand the cause to the circuit court with instructions to impose the fines as required by statute. The State also claims that the appellate court erred in vacating the $200 sexual assault fine identified in the circuit court's written sentencing order. Finally, the State argues that in resolving this appeal we should amend our rules to allow for correction of statutorily unauthorized sentences at any time by motion in the circuit court.

¶ 11 Defendant counters that the appellate court had jurisdiction to vacate the unauthorized fines assessed by the clerk of the circuit court but lacked the authority to impose the mandatory fines or to order that the circuit court do so on remand. He further argues that the appellate court correctly vacated the $200 sexual assault fine referenced on the circuit clerk's payment status information sheet because the trial judge did not impose that fine at the sentencing hearing. Lastly, defendant opposes the State's request for amendment of our rules in disposing of this appeal because no compelling reason justifies suspension of our typical rulemaking procedure.

¶ 12 At the outset, we note that no jurisdictional defect was asserted in the appellate court. However, a reviewing court is obligated to ascertain its jurisdiction before proceeding in a cause of action, regardless of whether the issue has been raised by either party. Secura Insurance Co. v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. , 232 Ill. 2d 209, 213, 327 Ill.Dec. 541, 902 N.E.2d 662 (2009) (citing People v. Smith , 228 Ill. 2d 95, 106, 319 Ill.Dec. 373, 885 N.E.2d 1053 (2008), and R.W. Dunteman Co. v. C/G Enterprises, Inc. , 181 Ill. 2d 153, 159, 229 Ill.Dec. 533, 692 N.E.2d 306 (1998) ). Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by agreement of the parties, and a lack of appellate jurisdiction is not subject to forfeiture. People v. Holmes , 235 Ill. 2d 59, 66, 335 Ill.Dec. 599, 919 N.E.2d 318 (2009) ; Franson v. Micelli , 172 Ill. 2d 352, 355, 217 Ill.Dec. 250, 666 N.E.2d 1188 (1996) ; Brauer Machine & Supply Co. v. Parkhill Truck Co. , 383 Ill. 569, 573, 50 N.E.2d 836 (1943). Consequently, we begin by addressing the State's argument that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review the fines recorded by the circuit clerk on the payment status information sheet. The determination of whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to consider an appeal is a question of law, which we review de novo . People v. Shinaul , 2017 IL 120162, ¶ 8, 417 Ill.Dec. 608, 88 N.E.3d 760.

¶ 13 Article VI, section 6, of the Illinois Constitution confers on the appellate court jurisdiction to review final judgments entered by the circuit court. Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, § 6 ; Shinaul , 2017 IL 120162, ¶ 10, 417 Ill.Dec. 608, 88 N.E.3d 760. A final judgment "determines the litigation on the merits such that the only thing remaining is to proceed with execution of judgment." Shinaul , 2017 IL 120162, ¶ 10, 417 Ill.Dec. 608, 88 N.E.3d 760 ; People v. Pawlaczyk , 189 Ill. 2d 177, 186, 244 Ill.Dec. 13, 724 N.E.2d 901 (2000). The rendition of a judgment is a judicial act, performed by the court at the time it makes its pronouncement. In re Estate of Young , 414 Ill. 525, 533, 112 N.E.2d 113 (1953) (citing People ex rel. Waite v. Bristow , 391 Ill. 101, 62 N.E.2d 545 (1945), and Smyth v. Fargo , 307 Ill. 300, 138 N.E. 610 (1923) ).

¶ 14 In a criminal case, the final judgment is the sentence. People v. Allen , 71 Ill. 2d 378, 381, 16 Ill.Dec. 941, 375 N.E.2d 1283 (1978). The imposition of a criminal sentence is the judicial act that comprises the judgment of the court. Id. (citing People v. Moran , 342 Ill. 478, 174 N.E. 532 (1930) ). A fine constitutes a pecuniary punishment imposed on a person guilty of committing an offense. People v. Graves , 235 Ill. 2d 244, 250, 335 Ill.Dec. 881, 919 N.E.2d 906 (2009) ; People v. Jones , 223 Ill. 2d 569, 581, 308 Ill.Dec. 402, 861 N.E.2d 967 (2006). Because the imposition of a fine as part of a criminal sentence is a judicial function, it can be performed only by a judge of the circuit court. See Allen , 71 Ill. 2d at 381, 16 Ill.Dec. 941, 375 N.E.2d 1283 ; Moran , 342 Ill. at 480, 174 N.E. 532.

¶ 15 The Illinois Constitution also provides that clerks of courts are nonjudicial officers of the court. Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, § 18 ; Walker v. McGuire , 2015 IL 117138, ¶ 30, 396 Ill.Dec. 156, 39 N.E.3d 982 (citing Drury v. County of McLean , 89 Ill. 2d 417, 423, 60 Ill.Dec. 624, 433 N.E.2d 666 (1982) ); see also Hall v. Marks , 34 Ill. 358,...