No. 2--06--1217
-14-
Accordingly, pursuant to our authority under Rule 615(b)(4), we order the clerk of the circuit
court to make the necessary corrections to the mittimus.
C. Propriety of Various Costs, Fees, and Fines
1. $10 Crime Stoppers Fines
Defendant asserts that, because the trial court imposed a sentence of incarceration, it had no
authority to require defendant to pay a local anti-crime program fine on each conviction. Section 5--
6--3(b)(13) of the Unified Code of Corrections (Code) provides for the imposition of fines for the
purpose of reimbursing local anti-crime programs (730 ILCS 5/5--6--3(b)(13) (West 2006)). That
provision authorizes such contributions only in cases where defendants were sentenced to probation,
conditional discharge, or supervision. See People v. Beler, 327 Ill. App. 3d 829, 837 (2002). Thus,
according to defendant, because the trial court revoked his probation and sentenced him to prison,
the fines were not authorized. We disagree.
When it sentenced defendant to probation on March 23, 2006, the trial court imposed a $10
Crime Stoppers fine on each conviction, and defendant does not dispute that the court had the
authority to do so. The fines became due at that time. When the trial court later sentenced defendant
to prison, it noted that defendant had a balance due of $3,299. Contrary to defendant's claim, the
court did not "re-impose" the fines. Defendant cites no authority supporting his claim that the court's
subsequent revocation of his probation warrants vacation of the fines.
Alternatively, citing People v. Littlejohn, 338 Ill. App. 3d 281 (2003), defendant argues that
he is entitled under section 110--14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Criminal Procedure
Code) (725 ILCS 5/110--14 (West 2006)) to a $5-per-day credit toward the fines. Ignoring
