NO. 4-07-0997 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DONTE M. CLAUSELL, Defendant-Appellant.
) Appeal from ) Circuit Court of ) Adams County ) No. 07CF395 ) ) Honorable ) Scott H. Walden, ) Judge Presiding. _________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE MYERSCOUGH delivered the opinion of the court: In September 2007, a jury acquitted defendant, Donte M. Clausell, of aggravated battery (720 ILCS 5/12-4(b)(8) (West 2006)) and convicted him of robbery (720 ILCS 5/18-1 (West 2006)) and burglary (720 ILCS 5/19-1(a) (West 2006)). In October 2006,
the trial court sentenced defendant to 36 months' probation and ordered him to pay restitution. Defendant appeals, arguing the
imposition of restitution was improperly based on the acquitted aggravated-battery charge. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND Justin Davis testified he was standing by his vehicle when a white four-door vehicle approached. Davis explained three
black males dressed in baggy pants and long white shirts got out and asked him "where the green was." they wanted money or drugs. Davis testified he assumed
Davis turned to leave but was struck
in the neck from behind and fell to the ground unconscious.
Davis woke lying on his back with one of the men standing on his face. pockets. A second man was searching through his Davis testified
A third man was searching his vehicle.
the man standing on his face told Davis he would "stomp [his] face in" if he moved. wallet, and keys. The men took Davis's cellular phone,
The men unlocked the vehicle's trunk and The men placed the speakers in their
removed four speakers. vehicle and left.
Davis called the police and provided a description of the men, a description of the vehicle, and the vehicle's licenseplate number. According to City of Quincy, Illinois, police officer Chad Liesen's testimony, police found the vehicle approximately an hour later. vehicle. Defendant and two other men were inside the
All three men were dressed in baggy shorts and long Liesen testified Davis's speakers were located in
the backseat and trunk. The jury found defendant guilty of robbery and burglary but not guilty of aggravated battery. At sentencing, the State requested restitution for Davis's medical bills. Defense counsel argued against such
restitution because the injuries were caused by the aggravated battery and defendant was found not guilty of the aggravatedbattery charge. The State argued that the use of force for the -2-
robbery was sufficient to justify restitution. suffering a concussion.
The trial court acknowledged defendant
was acquitted of aggravated battery but found the record afforded a sufficient basis to order restitution for Davis's medical bills based on the force used in the robbery. The court ordered
defendant to pay restitution of $2,541.06 for Davis's medical expenses. This appeal followed. II. ANALYSIS On appeal, defendant argues the trial court improperly ordered him to pay restitution for medical expenses because Davis's medical bills resulted from the acquitted aggravatedbattery charge. The State argues the restitution order was based We agree with the State.
on defendant's robbery conviction.
A. Standard of Review "A restitution order will not be reversed absent a showing of an abuse of discretion." 669, 673, 695 N.E.2d 587, 589 (1998). B. The Restitution Order Was Proper "It is well established that a court may not impose restitution for charges upon which a defendant is acquitted." People v. Owens, 323 Ill. App. 3d 222, 234, 753 N.E.2d 513, 523 (2001). In addition, the trial court may not "order restitution People v. ThompIn re M.Z., 296 Ill. App. 3d
of sums extraneous to the charges before it." -3-
son, 200 Ill. App. 3d 23, 26, 557 N.E.2d 1008, 1010 (1990). However, a defendant may be ordered to make restitution for injuries proximately caused by the same criminal conduct of defendant as that of which he was convicted (730 ILCS 5/5-5-6(b) (West 2006)). Section 5-5-6 of the Unified Code of Corrections (Unified Code) (730 ILCS 5/5-5-6 (West 2006)) requires the trial court to order restitution in accordance with that section for all convictions resulting from offenses in violation of the Criminal Code of 1961 (720 ILCS 5/1-1 through 47-25 (West 2006)) in which a person received an injury to their person as a result of the defendant's criminal act. Under subsection (a) of that
section, the court shall determine at the sentencing hearing "whether the defendant should be required to make restitution in cash, for out-of-pocket expenses, damages, losses, or injuries found to have been proximately caused by the conduct of the defendant." 730 ILCS 5/5-5-6(a) (West 2006).
The trial court calculated the $2,541.06 restitution order for Davis's medical expenses as follows: $290.50 for Clinical Radiology; $10 for a prescription; and $2,240.56 to Blessing Hospital, $1,833.39 of which was covered by insurance. See Wills v. Foster, 229 Ill. 2d 393, 412-14, 892 N.E.2d 1018, 1030-31 (2008) (finding that where the plaintiff was entitled to seek and recover the reasonable value of her medical expenses, -4-
her recovery was not limited by the amount paid by insurance). The aggravated-battery charge alleged defendant "or one for whose conduct he is legally responsible, struck *** Davis in the head with his fist." The robbery charge alleged defendant
"or one for whose conduct he is legally responsible, took property, being keys and a cell phone, from the person of *** Davis, by the use of force." Defendant argues that because the blow to
the head was the basis for the aggravated-battery charge, of which defendant was acquitted, any restitution based on that charge is void. In support of that position, defendant cites People v. Chapin, 233 Ill. App. 3d 28, 597 N.E.2d 1250 (1992). Chapin is distinguishable. However,
In Chapin, the jury acquitted defen-
dant of theft by deception of $6,000 and found him guilty of theft by deception of $4,600. 597 N.E.2d at 1253. Chapin, 233 Ill. App. 3d at 32,
On appeal, defendant argued the trial court Chapin,
erred when it ordered him to pay $10,600 in restitution. 233 Ill. App. 3d at 34, 597 N.E.2d at 1255.
The Third District
found the $6,000 restitution order was void as defendant was only convicted of theft by deception of $4,600. 3d at 34, 597 N.E.2d at 1255. Chapin, 233 Ill. App.
The court found the trial court
was not permitted to order restitution of sums extraneous to the charges before it. 1255. -5Chapin, 233 Ill. App. 3d at 34, 597 N.E.2d at
In contrast here, the trial court did not order restitution for sums extraneous to the charges. The injuries Davis
incurred were based on the robbery charge of which defendant was convicted. Defendant was charged with robbery for taking Davis's The court acknowledged defen-
keys and cellular phone by force.
dant was acquitted of aggravated battery but still found restitution was justified based on the force used for the robbery. According to Davis's testimony, one of the men struck him in the head causing him to fall to the ground. One of the men then held
Davis on the ground by placing his foot on Davis's head, covering his nose and cheek. Davis also testified the pressure exerted on
his head was hurtful and made him feel his head could have been stomped into the ground. Defendant contends the medical expenses relate solely to the initial blow to Davis's head, which formed the basis for the aggravated-battery charge. Defendant argues while the
aggravated battery caused Davis' concussion, the force used in the robbery "did not even cause a bloody nose." In addition,
defendant contends "the only injury Davis reported and police observed was redness and swelling behind [his] right ear from the initial blow to the head." However, defendant presented no
evidence Davis' injuries were exclusively caused by the initial blow recited in the aggravated-battery charge. Even assuming arguendo that Davis's injuries resulted -6-
exclusively from the initial blow, the fact defendant was acquitted of the aggravated-battery charge is not determinative as "[r]estitution may properly be ordered for all losses proximately caused by the same criminal acts of the defendant." People v.
Gallinger, 252 Ill. App. 3d 816, 819, 624 N.E.2d 399, 401 (1993), citing People v. Hernandez, 236 Ill. App. 3d 983, 985, 600 N.E.2d 1234, 1235 (1992). In this case, the initial strike is proximately related to the robbery. of conduct. Here, defendant was engaged in a single course
The blow to Davis's head reasonably could be seen to
have been used to disable Davis and allow the robbery to commence. As a result, Davis's injuries were proximately caused by
defendant's criminal conduct for which he was convicted. Accordingly, the trial court's restitution order can stand solely on defendant's robbery conviction. As a result, we
find the court did not err in ordering restitution for Davis's medical costs. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court's judgment. As part of our judgment, we grant the State its $50
statutory assessment against defendant as costs of this appeal. Affirmed. KNECHT and STEIGMANN, JJ., concur.