Summary
The Illinois Supreme Court held that section 5-9-2 of the Unified Code of Corrections allows revocation or modification only of discretionary penal fines imposed under section 5-9-1, not mandatory statutory fines. The court further held that Illinois Supreme Court Rules 105 and 106, which govern notice requirements for section 2-1401 petitions, do not apply to section 5-9-2 petitions, allowing a trial court to rule on such petitions immediately upon filing. Because the fines imposed on the defendant were mandatory and thus outside the scope of section 5-9-2, the circuit court had no discretion to revoke them and did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition. A special concurrence argued that the plain language of section 5-9-2 does not limit revocation to discretionary fines and would have affirmed on the ground that the defendant failed to show good cause.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the procedural rules applicable to section 2-1401 petitions (including Illinois Supreme Court Rules 105 and 106) apply to petitions under section 5-9-2 of the Unified Code of Corrections.
- Whether section 5-9-2 of the Unified Code of Corrections allows a circuit court to revoke mandatory fines, or only discretionary penal fines imposed under section 5-9-1.
- Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in denying petitioner's section 5-9-2 petition where he showed good cause for revocation.
Holdings
- Illinois Supreme Court Rule 106 does not extend the procedural rules applicable to section 2-1401 petitions to section 5-9-2 petitions. The circuit court did not err in ruling on the petition before the 30-day period specified in Rule 105.
- Section 5-9-2 of the Unified Code of Corrections only permits revocation of discretionary penal fines imposed under section 5-9-1, not mandatory fines.
- The circuit court did not abuse its discretion because it had no discretion to revoke or modify the mandatory fines imposed on petitioner.
Key quotations
“For the following reasons, we answer these questions in the negative and affirm the judgment of the appellate court.” (¶ 1)
“By its plain language, Rule 106 extends the requirements of Rule 105(a) to specific proceedings, none of which are proceedings under section 5-9-2.” (¶ 26)
“Read within the context of article 9, section 5-9-2 plainly allows the circuit court to revoke and modify fines that are imposed under the provisions of Chapter V, article 9, of the Unified Code. However, it would be contrary to the legislative intent to give the circuit court discretion to revoke a fine the court does not have the discretion to impose.” (¶ 34)
“Only two of these fines—the Trauma Center Fund and Spinal Cord Injury Paralysis Cure Research Trust Fund assessments—were fines imposed under Chapter V, article 9, of the Unified Code. However, because these fines were mandatory, the circuit court could not revoke or modify them under section 5-9-2.” (¶ 38)
“Considering our conclusions as to the application of section 5-9-2, we find the court had no discretion to revoke or modify the fines imposed on petitioner. Therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition.” (¶ 40)
Factual background
Petitioner Jorge Reyes was convicted of aggravated DUI in 2012 and sentenced to 36 months in prison. The sentencing order imposed various assessments totaling $1,670, including mandatory fines such as the Trauma Center Fund fee and Spinal Cord Injury Paralysis Cure Research Trust Fund fee. Petitioner received $65 in per diem credit, reducing his balance to $1,605. Years later, while incarcerated for an unrelated offense, petitioner filed three petitions under section 5-9-2 seeking revocation of his fines, citing indigency and desire for a fresh start. The circuit court denied each petition, finding no good cause. On appeal, the appellate court remanded for per diem credit adjustments, after which petitioner still owed $135. The appellate court then held that section 5-9-2 only permits revocation of discretionary penal fines under section 5-9-1, not mandatory fines.
Procedural history
Petitioner was convicted of aggravated DUI in 2012 and sentenced to 36 months in prison with various fines and fees. He filed three petitions under section 5-9-2 to revoke his fines, all denied by the circuit court. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the third petition. The Illinois Supreme Court granted leave to appeal.