Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

338 Ill. App. 3d 281

788 N.E.2d 339

273 Ill.Dec. 30

People v. Littlejohn

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided April 4, 2003

Appellate Court of Illinois · decided 2003-04-04

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably 388 Ill. App. 3d 936 - People v. Dowding (2009), 363 Ill. App. 3d 94 - People v. Tolliver (2006)

27 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2003-04-04

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

JUSTICE SCHMIDT,

¶1specially concurring in part and dissenting in part:

¶2I concur with the majority with the exception of that portion of the opinion holding that defendant is entitled to a monetary credit for time served against the crime stoppers fee. While I also agree that the legislature could have made this clearer, I believe that the crime stoppers fee imposed under section 5 — 6—3(b)(13) (730 ILCS 5/5 — 6— 3(b) (13) (West 2000)) qualifies as a fee or cost as opposed to a fine. I cannot think of any other reason the legislature enacted this statute except to defray the costs of local anti-crime programs. Therefore, I see this section as analogous to the laboratory fee statute and would deny defendant credit against the crime stoppers fee as well as the laboratory analysis fee.

/338/illapp3d/281 · .json · Public domain