2y ago
1.35 MB
54 Pages
Last View : 14d ago
Last Download : 4m ago
Upload by : Francisco Tran

123052No. 123052IN THESUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OFILLINOIS,Plaintiff-Appellee,Appeal from the Appellate Court ofIllinois, No. 3-15-0524.There on appeal from the CircuitCourt of the Twelfth JudicialCircuit, Will County, Illinois, No.10-CF-2 114.vsAARON RIOS-SALAZARDefendant-AppellantHonorableCarla Alessio-Policandriotes,Judge Presiding.BRIEF AND ARGUMENT FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANTJAMES E. CHADDState Appellate DefenderPETER A. CARUSONADeputy DefenderDIMITRI G. GOLFISAssistant Appellate DefenderOffice of the State Appellate DefenderThird Judicial District770 E. Etna RoadOttawa, IL 61350(815) L FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANTORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTEDE-FILED5/2412018 12:51 PMCarolyn Taft GrosbollSUPREME COURT CLERKSUBMITTED - 1117380- Esmeralda Martinez - 5/24/2018 12:51 PM

123052POINT AND AUTHORITIESTrial counsel deprived defendant of the effective assistance of counselby failing to challenge as cx post facto violations defendant's 100 ViolentCrime Victim Assistance fine and 25 judicial facilities fine.Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) .5People u. Hale, 2013 IL 113140 .5SA. Defendant's 100 VCVA fine and 25 judicial facilities fine arecx post facto violations.U.S. Const., art; I§9. 6Ill. COnst. 1970, art. I,§16 . 655 ILCS 5/51101.3(b) (2015) . 6 55 ILCS 5/5-1101(c) (2010) . 7155 ILCS 5/5-1101(d-5) (2010) . s55ILCS 5/5-1101(f) (2010) .55 ILCS 5/5-1101(f-5) (2010) . 7 725 ILCS 240/10(b) (2010) . 7, 8725 ILCS 240/ 10(b)(1) (2012) . 7730 ILCS 5/5-9-1.15(a) (2010) . 7730 ILCS 5/5-9-1.7(b)(1) (2010) .7Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) .8People v. Johnson, 2011 IL 111817 .6People v. Graves, 235 Ill.2d 244 (2009) . 6People v. JamiAon, 229 Ill.2d 184 (2008) .6-1-SUBMI1TEO 111738O Esmeralda Martinez- 5t242D18 12:51 PM

123052People v. Cornelius, 213 II1.2d 178 (2004).6People v. Malchoui, 193 I11.2d 413 (2000) .6, 7People v. Coleman, 111 Il1.2d 87 (1986) .6People v. Johnson, 2015 IL App (3d) 140364 .6People v. Ackerman, 2015 ILApp (3d) 120585 .7People u. Rexroad, 2013 IL App (4th) 110981 .8People v. Vlahon, 2012 IL App (4th) 110229 .8People i'. Folks, 406.111. App. 3d 300 (4th Dist. 2010) . 8People v. Dalton, 406 Ill. App. 3d 158 (2d Dist. 2010) .7People v. Anderson, 402 Ill. App. 3d 186 (3d Ditht. 2010) .7Peoplev. Jones, 397 111. App. 3d 651 (1st Dist. 2009) .7Public Act 98-1085 (eff. Jan. 1, 2015). .7B. Defendant's trial counsel performed deficiently and prejudiceddefendant by failing challenge the 100 VCVA fine and 25 judicial fàcffitiesfine as ex post facto violations.Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 8 .8U.S. Const., amend. VI . 8U.S. Const., amend. XIV .8Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) .8Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) .Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U.S. 128 (1967) .8People u. Domagala,2013 IL 113688 .8People u. Deleon, 227 Ill.2d 322 (2008) .9People v. Jackson, 149 111.2d 540 (1992) .-11-SUBMI1TED- 1117360- Esmeralda Martinez-. 5/24/2018 12:51 PM

123052People v. Baker, 92 I11.2d 85 (1982).81. Counsel's failure to challenge the two fines was unreasonableunder prevailing professional norrns,satisfyiiig Strickland's deficiencystandard.725 ILCS .105/10(a) (2015) .14Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) . 9, 13, 15People v. Somers, 2013 IL 114054 .10People p. Gutierrez, 2012 IL 111590 . 10People v. Johnson, 2011 IL 111817 . 10People v. Jackson, 2011 IL 110615 . 10People v. Marshall, 242 I11.2d 285 (2011) . 10People v. Burnett, 237 I11.2d 381 (2010) . 14People v. Smith, 236 111.24 162 (2010) . 10 People v. Graves, 235 I11.2d 244 (2009) . iOPeople v. Lewis, 234 111.2d 32 (2009) . 0People v. Jamison, 229 I11.2d 184 (2008) . 10People v. Jones, 223 I11.2d 569 (2006) . 10People v. Mink, 141 I11.2d 163 (1990) . 14. .Peoplev. Cox, 2017 ILApp (1st) 151536 . 13Peoplev. Lake, 2015ILApp (3d) 140031 . 11People v. Rankin, 2015 IL App (1st) 133409 .11People v. Robinson, 2015 IL App (1st) 130837 .11People v. Hollahan, 2015 IL App (3d) 130525 .11-111-SUBMITTED - 1117380- Esmeralda Martinez- 51242018 12:51 PM

123052People u. Johnson, 2015 IL App (3d) 130431.11People u. Moreno, 2015 IL App (3d) 130119 . 11People u. McClinton, 2015 IL App (3d) 130109 . 11People u. Jernigan, 2014 IL App (4th) 130524 . 11People v. Smith, 2014 IL App (4th) 121118. 11People v. Dillard, 2014 IL App (3d) 121020 . 11People v Higgins, 2014 IL App (2d) 120888 . 12People v. Larue, 2014 IL App (4th) 120595 . 12People v. Ackerman, 2014 IL App (3d) 120585 . 11People v. Schronski, 2014 IL App (3d) 120574 . 11People u. Hunter, 2014 IL App (3d) 120552. 11People u. Hill, 2014 IL App (3d) 120472 . 11People u. Williams, 2014 IL.App (3d) 120240 . 11People u. McCann, 2013 IL App (3d) 120732 . 12People v. Wynn, 2013 IL App (2d) 120575 . 12People v. Jackson, 2013 IL App (3d) 120205 . 11People v. Butler, 2013 IL App (5th) 110282 . 12People v. Siedlinski, 279 Iii. App. 3d 1003 (2d Dist. 1996) . 13People v. Branch, 2015 IL App (3d) 130686-U . 12People v. Lane, 2015 IL App (3d) 130520-U . 12People v. Harmon, 2015 IL App (3d) 130517-U . 12People v. Pulley, 2015 IL App (3d) 130506-U . 12People v. Larimore, 2015 IL App (3d) 130377-U . . 12-iv-SUBMITTED -1117380- Esmeralda Martinez -5124/2018 12:51 PM

123052People v. .Kimmitt, 2015 IL App (3d) 130323-U . 12People ii. Taylor, 2015 ILApp (3d) 130283-U .12People v. Howell, 2015 IL App (3d) 130166-U . 12People v. Rogers, 2015 IL App (3d) 130088-U. . . 12People v. Hamilton, 2015 IL App (3d) 121065-U .12People v. Pedigo, 2015 IL App (3d) 121060-U .12People'i.Gerna, 2014 IL App (3d) 140225-U . 12People v. Marquis, 2014 ILApp.(3d) 130293-U. 12People v. Hatten, 2014 IL App (3d) 130159-U . 12People v. Blalock, 2014.IL App (3d) 120964-U . 12People v. Moore, 2014 IL App (3d) 120928-U . 12People v. Howard, 2014 IL App (3d) 120738-U . 12People v. Thornton, 2014 IL App (3d) 120652-U . 12People v. Blackhawk, 2014 IL App (3d) 120263-U . 12People v. Fredericleson, 2014 IL App (3d) 110733-U . 12People v. Richardson, 2013 IL App (3d) 120404-U . 12People v. Brazelton, 2013 IL App (3d) 120184-U . 12Peopleii.Shoffner, 2013 IL App (3d) 120123-U . 12People v. MartinS, 172 Cal. Rptr. 3d (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) .13State v. Ward, 932 N.E.2d 374 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010) .13Carissa Byrne Hessick, Ineffective Assistance at Sentencing, 50 B.C.L. Rev. 1069(2009) . 10People a Le, 39 Cal. Rptr. 3d 146 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) .13SUBMITTED - 1117380 - Esmeralcla Martinez 5/24/2018 12:51 PM

123052ABA Criminal Justice Standards for the Defense Function (4th ed.), Standard4-1.2 .9ABA Criminal Justice Standards for the Defense Function (4th ed.), Standard4-8.3 .9NLADA Performance Guidelines for Criminal Defense Representation, Guideline8.1. .10NLADA Performance Guidelines for Criminal Defense Representation, Guideline8.2 .10NLADA Performance Guidelines for Criminal Defense Representation, Guideline8.7 .10The expost facto violations were not de minimis, and a de minimisexception does not exist, defies Strickland, and is not workable.Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) .15, 16, 18Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (1979) .18Gary ii. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (1978) .17Glover v. United States, 531 U.S. 198 (2001) .16People v. Lewis, 234 Ill.2d 32 (2009) .16, 17Day v. McDavid, 119 Ill. App. 2d 62 (4th Dist. 1970) .17Teague u. Quarterman, 482 F.3d 769 (5th Cir. 2007) .16Lewis v. Woods, 848 F.2d 649 (5th Cir. 1988) .17Peoplet'.Rios-Salazar, 2017 IL App (3d) 150524 .15Counsel's deficient performance satisfies the Strickland prejudicestandard.Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) .18, 19-vi.SUBMITTED . 1117380- Esmeralda Martinez . 5/4/o 8 12:51 PM

IP*I'1.t24. The circuit court's failure to impose other mandatory fines doesnot extinguish the prejudice to defendant.Strickland ii. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) .20People ex rel. Berlin v. Bakalis, 2018 IL 122435 .19People v.Casileberry, 2015 IL116i6 . 19People v. Rios-Salazar, 2017 IL App (3d) 150524 .19-vii-SUBMITTED- 1117380 - Esmeralda Martinez 512412018 12:51 PM

123052NATURE OF THE CASEAaron Rios-Salazar pleaded guilty to the offense of predatory criminal sexualassault of a child. The circuit court sentenced him to 24 years' imprisonment and,inter alia, numerous fines, costs, and fees.This is a direct appeal from the judgment of the court below. No issue israised challenging the charging instrument.ISSUE PRESENTED FOR REVIEWWhether trial counsel deprived defendant of the effective assistance of counselby failing to challenge as ex post facto violations defendant's 100 Violent CrimeVictim Assistance fine and 25 judicial facilities fine.JURISDICTIONJurisdiction lies with this Court under Supreme Court Rules 315 and 612(b).This Court allowed defendant's timely petition for leave to appeal on March 21,2018. People v. Rios-Salazar, No. 123052 (Mar. 21, 2018).-1SUBMITTED- 1117380- Esmeralda Martinez - 512412018 12:51 PM

1P*M.tSTATEMENT OF FACTSOn March 19, 2015, Aaron Rios-Salazar ("defendant") pleaded guilty topredatory criminal sexual assault for conduct occurring on or between February1, 2010, and August 30, 2010 (Cii; R72-92).On June 16, 2015, the circuit court sentenced defendant to 24 years'imprisonment and, inter alia, "costs of prosecution" (C66; R145-48).Defense counsel filed motions to reconsider sentence and to withdrawdefendant's plea on June 23, 2015, and July 9, 2015, respectively (C71-74).At a hearing on July 22,2015, the circuit court deniedboth motions (R170-82).Defense counsel requested that a notice of appeal be filed and that the Office ofthe State Appellate Defender be appointed (R183). The next day, the court amendedthe judgment order, modifying the number of days of presentence custody (C 121).On July 24, 2015, the court imposed the foflowing assessments againstdefendant, totaling 1,587, which it itemized in a criminal cost sheet with citationto authority: 30 Children's Advocacy Center Fee [55 ILCS 5/5-1101(f-5)] 125 Clerk's Filing Fee [705 ILCS 105/27 2] 15 Couri Automation Fee [705 ILCS 105/27 3a] 25 Court Security Fee [55 ILCS 5/5-1103] 10 Court Services Operations Fee [705 ILCS 105/27 3a] 50 Court Systems Fee [55 ILCS 5/5-110 1] 15 Document Storage Fee [705 ILCS 105/273d 5 Drug Court Fee [55 ILCS 5/5-1101(f)] 10 Specialized Court Fee [55 ILCS 5/5-1101(d-5)]-2SUBMITTED - 1117380 Esnieralda Martinez . 5/2412018 12:51 PM

123052 25 House Fee [no citation to authority provided] 250 DNA Database Analysis Fee [730 ILCS 5/5-4-3] 100 Violent Crime Victim Assistance (VCVA) Fee [725 ILCS 240/10] 200 Sexual Assault Fine [730 ILCS 515-9-1 7 & 725 ILCS 5/100-14]- 500 Sex Offender Fine [730 ILCS 5/5-9-1 15] 30 State's Attorney Conviction Fee [55 ILCS 5/4-2002] 2 State's Attorney Automation Fee [no citation to authority provided] 195 Sheriffs Green Sheet Fees [55 ILCS 5/4-501 & 725 ILCS 5/124(a-5)](C122-25; A15-18).The same day, the clerk filed a notice of appeal, and the court appointedthe Office of the State Appellate Defender to represent defendant on appeal (C129,131).The record contains a stylistically different, second cost sheet dated September10, 2015. It is not signed by the circuit judge. It itemizes various monetaryassessments totaling 1,587. The itemized assessments correspond, for the mostpart, with the assessments itemized in the criminal cost sheet signed.by the circuitjudge. Howe'ver, the additional cost sheet does not list a 25 "house fee"; instead,it lists a 25 "JUDICIAL FACILITIE" assessment (C132; A19-21).On appeal, defendant argued that trial counsel deprived him of the effectiveassistance of counsel by failing to challenge as expost facto violations the 190VCVA assessment and 25 judicial facilities assessment. People v. Rios-Salazar,2017 IL App (3d) 150524, IT 1, 6. A divided panel of the Illinois Appellate Court,Third Judicial District, affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence. Id. at ¶IJ1-12. The majority held that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise-3SUBMITTED - 1117380- Esmeralda Martinez - 5I242018 12:51 PM

123052expost facto challenges to the two assessments. Id. at ¶11 6-12. Justice Schmidtopined that the amount at issue, 57, was de minimis, so counsel had no dutyto object. Id. at 8-9. Justiée Wright opined that defendant had not establishedprejudice because a mandatory fine the trial court neglected to impose exceededthe amount of improper fines. Id. at fi 13-17 (Wright, J., specially concurring).Justice Lytton dissented, opining that counsel was ineffective. Id. at ¶11 18-25(Lytton, J., dissenting).This Court allowed defendant's petition for leave to appeal on March 21,2018 (A22).-4SUBMITTED 1117360- Esmeralda Martinez 5/24/2018 12:51 PM--

123052Trial counsel deprived defendant of the effective assistance of counselby failing to challenge as expost facto violations defendant's 100 ViolentCrime Victim Assistance fine and 25 judicial facilities fine.STANDARD OF REVIEWClaims of ineffective assistance of counsel generally present a mixed questionof law andfact. Strick kind v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668,698(1984). But, the ultimatelegal question of whether a defendant was deprived of the effective assistanceof counsel is reviewed de novo. People v. Hale, 2013 IL 113140, 115.ARGUMENTThe circuit court imposed two fines in violation of the cx post facto clausesof the United States and Illinois Constitutions: a 100 Violent Crime VictimAssistance (VCVA) fine and a 25 judicial facilities fine. In light of cx post factoprinciples, Illinois law at the time of defendant's offense, and the remaining finesthat the court properly imposed, the court should not have imposed a judicialfacilities fine, and defendant's VCVA fine should have been 68. Defense counsel'sfailure to challenge the expost facto violations in the circuit court was deficientand prejudicial under Strickland u. Washington, 466 U.S. 668(1984). The cx postfacto violations were not de minimis such that counsel performed reasonablynotwithstanding his failure to raise the issue. And the trial court's failure to imposeother mandatory fines did not extinguish the prejudice to defendant. Therefore,the Illinois Appellate Court erred when it held that defendant received the effective.assistance of counsel. This Court should reverse the Appellate Court's judgment,vacate defendant's 2 5 judicial facilities fine, and reduce his 100 VCVA fine to 68.5.StJBMITTED- 1117380- Esmeralda Martinez- 5/24/2018 12:51 PM

123052A. Defendant's 100 VCVA fine and 25 judicial facilities fine areex post facto violations.Both the United States and Illinois Constitutions prohibit expost facto laws.See U.S. Const., art. I, § 9; Ill. Const.1970, art. I, § 16. This Court interprets theexpost facto clause of the Illinois Constitution in step with its federal counterpart;thus, "the Illinois expost facto clause does not provide any greater protection thanthat offered by the United States Constitution." People v. Cornelius, 213 Il1.2d178, 207 (2004)."A law is expost facto if it is both retroactive and disadvantageous to thedefendant." People v. Malchow, 193 I11.2d 413,418(2000). Alaw is disadvantageousif it increases the punishment for a previouslycommitted offense because peopleare entitled to fair warning of the punishment that the State may impose forviolations of its laws. Id.; People ii. Coleman, 111 Ill.2d 87, 93-94 (1986).A fineis a pecuniary punishment. People v. Johnson, 2011 IL 111817, ¶ 16.The VCVA assessment is a fine. People v. Jamison, 229 IlL2d 184, 188-93(2008).The assessment for judicial facilities under section 5-1101.3 of the CountiesCode is also a fine. People v. Johnson, 2015 IL App (3d) 140364 (appendix to opinion).To be sure, section 5-1101.3 provides that the assessment be "used for the solepurpose of fIrnding in whole or in part the costs associated with building new judicialfacilities within the county[.]" 55 ILCS 5/5-1101.3(b) (2015). Under the statute'splain language, the assessment is not intended to reimburse the State for anyexpense of prosecuting defendant. "A charge is a fee if and only if it is intendedto reimburse the state for some cost incurred in defendant's prosecution." PeopleV.Graves, 235 Ill.2d 244, 250 (2009).SUBMITTED - 1117380- Esmeralda Martinez5/24/2016 12:51 PM

123052The offenses in this case occurred in 2010 (C11-18).The judicial facilities fine did not exist in 2010. Section 5-1101.3 of theCounties Code first went into effect on January 1, 2015. See Public Act 98-1085(eff. Jan. 1, 2015). Thus, defendant's 25 judicial facilities fine is an expost factoviolation (C122, 132). Malchow, 193 Ill.2d at 418.In 2010, the VCVA Act imposed a "penalty of 4 for each 40, or fractionthereof, of [other] fine[s] imposed." 725 ILCS 240/10(b) (2010). In 2012, section10 was amended by Public Act97-816, which increased the penalty to 100 forany felony conviction. See 725 ILCS 240/10(b)(1) (2012). As the updated versionof section 10(b) was not yet in effect in 2010, the circuit court violated expost factoprinciples by assessing a 100 VCVA fine upon defendant (C123, 132). Malchow,193 Ill;2d at 418.In this case, the trial court assessed defendant 645 in other fines (C122-25).Those fines, which are not assessments intended to reimburse the State for anyexpense of prosecuting or investigating defendant, are as follows: a 50 court systemfine under 55 ILCS 5/5-1101(c) (2010) (People u. Ackerman, 2015 ILApp (3d) 120585,¶ 30 (holding that the assessment is a fine)); 350 of the 500 sex offenderassessment under 730 ILCS 5/5-9-1.15(a) (2010) (People v. Dalton, 406 111. App.3d 158, 162-64 (2d Dist. 2010) (holding that 350 of the 500 sex offenderassessment is a fine)); a 200 sexual assault fine under 730 ILCS 5/5-9-1.7(b)(1)(2010) (People v. Anderson, 402 Ill. App. 3d 186, 193-94 (3d Dist. 2010) (statingthat the assessment is a fine)); a 30 Children's Advocacy Center assessment under55 ILCS5/5-1101(f-5) (2010) (People u. lones, 397111. App. 3d 651, 660 (1st Dist.2009) (holding that the assessment is a fine)); a 5 drug court fine under 55 ILCS-7SUBMITTED- 1117380- Esmeralda Martinez- 5124/2018 12:51 PM

1230525/5-1101(f) (2010) (People v. Rexroad, 2013 IL App (4th) 110981, 153 (statingthat the assessment is a fine where the defendant did not participate in chug court));and a 10 specializedcourt fee underss ILCS 5/5-1 101(d-5) (2010) (People ii. Folks,406 Ill. App. 3d 300, 305-07 (4th Dist.2010) (holding that the assessment is afine)) . .Consequently, the VCVA fine applicable to defendant was 68 ( 645 dividedby 40 equals 16plus a "fraction thereof' multiplied by 4 equals 68), not 100.See 725 ILCS 240/10(b) (2010) (VCVAfine is 4 for every 40, or fractionthereof,of other fines imposed); People u. Vlahon, 2012 ILApp (4th) 110229,1 38 (conductingVCVA fine calculation).In sum, the trial court overcharged defendant 57 because of the two expost facto violations. He should not have been assessed a judicial facilities fine.And his VCVA fine should have been 68 in light of the other, fines imposed.B. Defendant's trial counsel performed deficiently and prejudiceddefendant by failing challenge the 100 VCVA fine and 25 judicial fhcilitiesfine as expost facto violations.Every defendant has a constitutional right to counsel under the SixthAmendment to the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Illinois.People v. Domagala, 2013 IL 113688, ¶ 36; U.S. Const., amends. VT & XIV; Ill.Const. 1970, art. I, § 8. The right to counsel applies at sentencing. Gagnon v.Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 781 (1973); Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U.S. 128, 134 (1967);People v. Baker, 92 Ill.2d 85, 90 (1982). And it guarantees the effective assistanceof counsel. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 686; Doinagala, 2013 IL 113688, ¶ 36.To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant mustmeet the standard set forth in Strickland u. Washington. Domagata, 2013 IL 113688,SUBMITTED -1117380- Esmeralda Martinez - 5124/2018 12:51 PM

123052¶ 36; see also generally People v. Deleon, 227 I11.2d 322, 324, 337 (2008) (applyingStrickland to a claim that counsel was ineffective with respect to a defendant'ssentence); People v. Jackson, 149 I11.2d 540, 553-54 (1992) (same). Defendanthas done so in this case.1. Counsel's failure to challenge the two fines was unreasonableunder prevailing professional norms, satisfying Strickland's deficiencystandard.Under the first ptong of the Strickland test, a "defendant must show thatcounsel's performance was deficient." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687. In other words,"the defendant must show that counsel's representation fell below an objectivestandard of reasonableness." Id. at 687-88. The proper measure of reasonablenessis "reasonableness under prevailing professional normS." Id. at 688. "Prevailingnorms of practice as reflected in American Bar Association standards and thelike. are guides to determining what is reasonable. . ." Id. When evaluatingwhether counsel's performance was reasonable, courts of review "must judge thereasonableness of counsel's challenged conduct on the facts of the particular case,viewed as of the time of counsel's conduct." Id. at 690.Under prevailing professional norms, defense counsel had an obligationto consider what fines could be imposed and to challenge unauthorized fines. Tostart, the Strickland Courtitself emphasized that defense counsel's "overarchingduty [is] to advocate the defendant's cause." Id. at 688. American BarAssociation(ABA) standards provide that defense counsel should act zealously on behalf ofclients and, early in the representation and throughout the case, consider potentialissues that may affect sentencing and become familiar with applicable sentencinglaws and what consequences might arise if the clientInSUBMITTED- 1117380- Esmeralda Martinez 5/24/2018 12:51 PMis convicted. ABA Criminal

123052Justice Standards for the Defense Function (4th ed.), Standards 4-1.2 & 4-8.3.The National Legal Aid and DefenderAssociation (NLADA) performance guidelinesprovide that defense counsel has an obligation to become familiar with applicablefines and protect the client's interests at sentencing in pursuit of the leastburdensome sentencing alternative. NLADA Performance Guidelines for CriminalDefense Representation, Guidelines 8.1-8.2 & .8.7:Additionally, legal scholarswho have addressed defense counsel's obligations concerning sentencing haveopined that counsel should be aware of applicable fines and argue for the leastburdensome sentence that is realistically possible. See, e.g., Carissa Byrne Hessick,Ineffective Assistance at Sentencing, 50 B.C.L. Rev. 1069, 1116-17 (2009).National standards aside, Illinois law is also instructive. When the circuitcourt imposed monetary assessments in this case, fines and fees had become thesubject of increased focus and litigation in Illinois courts. In the 10 yearsimmediately preceding this case, this Court had addressed the propriety of finesand fees innumerous criminal cases. See, e.g., People v Somers, 2013 IL 114054(addressing public defender fee); People v. Gutierrez, 2012 IL 111590 (addressingpublic defender fee); People v. Johnson, 2011 IL 111817 (addressing applicationof per diem credit to DNA analysis fee); People v. Jackson, 2011 IL 110615(addressing medical costs assessment); People v. Marshall, 242 I11.2d 285(2011)(addressing DNA analysis fee); People v. Smith, 236 Ill.2d 162 (2010) (addressingpreliminary examination fee); People v: Graves, 235111.2d244(2009) (addressingmultiple, monetary assessments and distinguishing between a fine and a fee); Peopleu. Lewis, 234 I11.2d 32 (2009) (addressing street value fine); People v. Jamison,229 Ill.2d 184(2008) (addressing VCVAfine); People v. Jones, 223 Ill.2d 569(2006)-10SUBMITrED- 1117380- Esmeralda Martinez- 5/24/2018 12:51 PM

123052(addressing multiple fines and differentiating between a fine and a fee).The same could be said for the Illinois Appellate Court. In the two yearsimmediately preceding this case, the Third Judicial District alone had issued morethan 10 published decisions addressing monetary assessments. See, e.g., Peopleu. Johnson, 2015 IL App (3d) 130431 (addressing various monetary assessments);People v. Hollahan, 2015 IL App (3d) 130525 (remanding for proper impositionof assessments in an itemized order); People v. Lake, 2015 IL App (3d) 140031(addressing application ofper diem credit against various fines); People v. Moreno,2015 IL App (3d) 130119 (remanding for proper calculation and imposition ofassessments); People v. McClinton, 2015 IL App (3d) 130109 (addressing publicdefender fee); People v. Dillard, 2014 ILApp (3d) 121020 (addressing various fines);People u. Schronski, 2014 IL App (3d) 120574 (addressing public defender fee andper diem credit); People v. Ackerman, 2014 ILApp (3d) 120585 (addressing multipleassessments); People v. Hill, 2014 IL App (3d) 120472 (addressing DNA analysisfee); People v. Hunter, 2014 IL App (3d) 120552 (remanding after trial courtmiscalculated monetary assessments); People ii. Williams, 2014 IL App (3d) 120240(addressing various assessments); People v. Jackson, 2013 IL App (3d) 120205(addressing various assessments).Of course, during the same time period, there were numerous publishedopinions from all the other judicial districts of the Illinois Appellate Court thataddressed the propriety of monetary assessments. See, e.g., People v. Rankin, 2015IL App (1st) 133409 (addressing public defender fee); People ii. Robinson, 2015IL App (1st) 130837 (addressing various assessments); People V. Jernigan, 2014IL App (4th) 130524 (addressing various fines); People v. Smith, 2014 IL App (4th)11SUBMITTED - 1117380- Esmeralda Martinez- 5/2412018 12:51 PM

123052121118 (addressing various assessments); People v Higgins, 2014 IL App (2d) 120888(addressing various assessments); People v. Larue, 2014 IL App (4th) 120595(addressing propriety of fines imposedby circuit court clerk); People v. Wynn, 2013IL App (2d) 120575 (addressing various assessments); People c'. Butler, 2013 ILApp (5th) 110282 (addressing various assessments and per diem credit).There were also numerous Rule 23 orders from the Third Judicial District,including cases from Will County, in which the Appellate Court addressed thepropriety of monetary assessments. See, e.g.,People v. Harmon, 2015 ILApp (3d)130517-U; People v. Branch, 2015 ILApp (3d) 130686-U; People v. Lane, 2015IL App (3d) 130520-U; People v. Pulle,9, 2015 IL App (3d) 130506-U; People v.Larimore, 2015 ILApp (3d) 130377-U; People v. Kimmitt, 2015 ILApp (3d) 130323-U;People u. Taylor, 2015 IL App (3d) 130283-U; People v. Howell, 2015 IL App

SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, _vs- AARON RIOS-SALAZAR . 770 E. Etna Road Ottawa, IL 61350 (815) 434-5531 3rddistrict.esérve@osad.state.il.us . Jurisdiction lies with this Court under Supreme Court Rules 315 and 612(b). This Court allow

Related Documents:

May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)

Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .

On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.

̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions

Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have

Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được

Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case Study Tinker v. Des Moines, 1968 Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case Study United States v. Nixon, 1974 Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case Study Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, 1987 Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case Study Bush v. Gore, 2000 Landmark U.S. Supre

Accounting for Nature: A Natural Capital Account of the RSPB’s estate in England 77. Puffin by Chris Gomersall (rspb-images.com) 8. Humans depend on nature, not only for the provision of drinking water and food production, but also through the inspiring landscapes and amazing wildlife spectacles that enrich our lives. It is increasingly understood that protecting and enhancing the natural .