People v. Gutierrez
Annotate this CaseDefendant pled guilty in 2007 to predatory criminal sexual assault of a child and received a 20-year sentence. He challenged fines and fees imposed, including a $250 public defender fee. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 725 ILCS 5/113-3.1(a), requires notice to the defendant and a hearing on ability to pay before the public defender fee may be imposed. The procedure was not followed; the appellate court vacated and remanded for notice and a hearing concerning ability to pay. The Supreme Court held that the fee should have been vacated outright, without any remand, because no motion to impose the fee had been made by the prosecution and it had not been sought by the circuit court itself. The circuit court clerk had imposed the fee unilaterally, without any authority for doing so.
Court Description:
In the circuit court of Lake County, Elias Gutierrez pled guilty in 2007 to predatory criminal sexual assault of a child and received a 20-year sentence. In seeking review in the appellate court, he challenged various fines and fees which had been imposed. The one at issue here is the $250 public defender fee.
Section 113-3.1(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires notice to the defendant and a hearing on his ability to pay before the public defender fee allowed by law may be imposed. Here, no such procedure was followed. In Gutierrez’s appeal, the appellate court vacated the fee and ordered a remand for notice and a hearing concerning ability to pay. The defendant appealed. He claimed that the fee should have been vacated outright by the appellate court, without any remand.
In this decision, the supreme court agreed, because no motion to impose the fee had been made by the prosecution and it had not been sought by the circuit court itself. Thus, there was no reason to conduct a hearing on ability to pay. The circuit court clerk had imposed the fee unilaterally, without any authority for doing so. This was improper and had to be vacated. The appellate court was reversed insofar as it had remanded.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.