ILCS » Chapter 720 · Act 570
Illinois Compiled Statutes

720 ILCS 570/411.2 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(720 ILCS 570/411.2), or Section 80 of the Methamphetamine Control and Community Protection Act
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 81 cases, 1993–2019 · leading case: People v. Jones, 861 N.E.2d 967 (Ill. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Jones, 861 N.E.2d 967 (Ill. 2006). · cites it 9× “2 of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act (720 ILCS 570/411.2 (West 2004)). The court noted that the resolution of this issue depended on whether the charge was a “fine” or “something else, like a fee or court cost, which is a charge taxed by a court, compensatory in nature.”
People v. Fort, 839 N.E.2d 1064 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). · cites it 11× “) 720 ILCS 570/411.2(0 (West 2002). Assuming the existence of ambiguity, we believe there are two sound reasons for adopting the results reached by the appellate court decisions.”
People v. Williams, 2013 IL App (4th) 120313 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). · cites it 6× “Drug Assessment (Class X) 720 ILCS 570/411.2(a)(1)/ Cannabis 720 ILCS 550/10.”
People v. Youngblood, 849 N.E.2d 423 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). · cites it 10× “Notably, the court quoted subsection (f) (720 ILCS 570/411.2 (f) (West 2002)), which refers to the assessment as a "penalty" and states that "`[n]othing in this Section shall be deemed to affect or suspend any other fines, restitution costs, forfeitures or assessments imposed…”
People v. Averett, 886 N.E.2d 1123 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008). · cites it 4× “Defendant was sentenced to eight years in prison and ordered to pay fines and fees, including a $2,000 controlled substance assessment (720 ILCS 570/411.2 (West 2004)). On appeal, defendant contends that: (1) he is entitled to a new trial where the State diminished its burden of…”
People v. Anderson, 2018 IL App (4th) 160037 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 5× “) 720 ILCS 570/411.2(a) (West 2014). The statutory language is clear that the assessments only apply to violations of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act ( 720 ILCS 570/100 to 603 (West 2014) ), not the Criminal Code of 2012 ( 720 ILCS 5/1-1 to 49-6 (West 2014) ).”
People v. Warren, 2016 IL App (4th) 120721-B (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). · cites it 2× “2(a)(2) of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act (720 ILCS 570/411.2(a)(2) (West 2010)). The circuit clerk's printout, however, shows the clerk only assessed a $1,275 mandatory assessment.”
People v. Fort, 869 N.E.2d 950 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 5× “) 720 ILCS 570/411.2© (West 2002). Assuming the existence of ambiguity, we believe there are two sound reasons for adopting the results reached by the appellate court decisions.”
People v. Jackson, 874 N.E.2d 592 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 2× “Accordingly, we vacate two of the three mandatory drug assessment fees imposed upon defendant and leave standing only a single assessment of $3,000, the assessment imposed upon the highest class offense of which defendant was convicted.”
People v. Orta, 836 N.E.2d 811 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). · cites it 3× “2(a)(1) of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act (720 ILCS 570/411.2(a)(l) (West 2002)). DECISION I.”
People v. Johnson, 867 N.E.2d 49 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 3× “720 ILCS 570/411.2 (West 2004). Section 411.”
People v. Gathing, 778 N.E.2d 215 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). · cites it 3× “720 ILCS 570/411.2(a) (West 2000). Payment of the assessment is to be forwarded by the circuit court clerk to the State Treasurer for deposit in the Drug Treatment Fund “within the State Treasury.”
Show all 81 citing cases →
— 720 ILCS 570/411.2(I) — 1 case
People v. Duff (Ill. App. Ct. 2007).
— 720 ILCS 570/411.2(a) — 19 cases
People v. Jones, 861 N.E.2d 967 (Ill. 2006). “2 of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act (720 ILCS 570/411.2 (West 2004)). The court noted that the resolution of this issue depended on whether the charge was a “fine” or “something else, like a fee or court cost, which is a charge taxed by a court, compensatory in nature.”
People v. Fort, 839 N.E.2d 1064 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). “) 720 ILCS 570/411.2(0 (West 2002). Assuming the existence of ambiguity, we believe there are two sound reasons for adopting the results reached by the appellate court decisions.”
People v. Smith, 865 N.E.2d 502 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007).
People v. Anderson, 2018 IL App (4th) 160037 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “) 720 ILCS 570/411.2(a) (West 2014). The statutory language is clear that the assessments only apply to violations of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act ( 720 ILCS 570/100 to 603 (West 2014) ), not the Criminal Code of 2012 ( 720 ILCS 5/1-1 to 49-6 (West 2014) ).”
People v. Johnson, 867 N.E.2d 49 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). “720 ILCS 570/411.2 (West 2004). Section 411.”
— 720 ILCS 570/411.2(a)(1) — 8 cases
People v. Williams, 2013 IL App (4th) 120313 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). “Drug Assessment (Class X) 720 ILCS 570/411.2(a)(1)/ Cannabis 720 ILCS 550/10.”
People v. Anderson, 2018 IL App (4th) 160037 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “) 720 ILCS 570/411.2(a) (West 2014). The statutory language is clear that the assessments only apply to violations of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act ( 720 ILCS 570/100 to 603 (West 2014) ), not the Criminal Code of 2012 ( 720 ILCS 5/1-1 to 49-6 (West 2014) ).”
People v. Gathing, 778 N.E.2d 215 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). “720 ILCS 570/411.2(a) (West 2000). Payment of the assessment is to be forwarded by the circuit court clerk to the State Treasurer for deposit in the Drug Treatment Fund “within the State Treasury.”
People v. Youngblood, 849 N.E.2d 423 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “Notably, the court quoted subsection (f) (720 ILCS 570/411.2 (f) (West 2002)), which refers to the assessment as a "penalty" and states that "`[n]othing in this Section shall be deemed to affect or suspend any other fines, restitution costs, forfeitures or assessments imposed…”
People v. Williams, 2013 IL App (2d) 120094 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014).
— 720 ILCS 570/411.2(a)(2) — 17 cases
People v. Warren, 2016 IL App (4th) 120721-B (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “2(a)(2) of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act (720 ILCS 570/411.2(a)(2) (West 2010)). The circuit clerk's printout, however, shows the clerk only assessed a $1,275 mandatory assessment.”
People v. Williams, 2013 IL App (4th) 120313 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). “Drug Assessment (Class X) 720 ILCS 570/411.2(a)(1)/ Cannabis 720 ILCS 550/10.”
People v. Warren, 2014 IL App (4th) 120721 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014).
People v. Anderson, 2018 IL App (4th) 160037 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “) 720 ILCS 570/411.2(a) (West 2014). The statutory language is clear that the assessments only apply to violations of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act ( 720 ILCS 570/100 to 603 (West 2014) ), not the Criminal Code of 2012 ( 720 ILCS 5/1-1 to 49-6 (West 2014) ).”
People v. Montiel, 851 N.E.2d 725 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006).
— 720 ILCS 570/411.2(a)(3) — 11 cases
People v. Anderson, 2018 IL App (4th) 160037 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “) 720 ILCS 570/411.2(a) (West 2014). The statutory language is clear that the assessments only apply to violations of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act ( 720 ILCS 570/100 to 603 (West 2014) ), not the Criminal Code of 2012 ( 720 ILCS 5/1-1 to 49-6 (West 2014) ).”
People v. McNeal, 847 N.E.2d 842 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006).
People v. Williams, 2013 IL App (4th) 120313 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). “Drug Assessment (Class X) 720 ILCS 570/411.2(a)(1)/ Cannabis 720 ILCS 550/10.”
People v. Fort, 869 N.E.2d 950 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). “) 720 ILCS 570/411.2© (West 2002). Assuming the existence of ambiguity, we believe there are two sound reasons for adopting the results reached by the appellate court decisions.”
People v. Squire, 851 N.E.2d 87 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006).
— 720 ILCS 570/411.2(a)(4) — 15 cases
People v. Jones, 861 N.E.2d 967 (Ill. 2006). “2 of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act (720 ILCS 570/411.2 (West 2004)). The court noted that the resolution of this issue depended on whether the charge was a “fine” or “something else, like a fee or court cost, which is a charge taxed by a court, compensatory in nature.”
People v. Fort, 839 N.E.2d 1064 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). “) 720 ILCS 570/411.2(0 (West 2002). Assuming the existence of ambiguity, we believe there are two sound reasons for adopting the results reached by the appellate court decisions.”
People v. Williams, 2013 IL App (4th) 120313 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). “Drug Assessment (Class X) 720 ILCS 570/411.2(a)(1)/ Cannabis 720 ILCS 550/10.”
People v. Willhite, 927 N.E.2d 1265 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010).
People v. Johnson, 867 N.E.2d 49 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). “720 ILCS 570/411.2 (West 2004). Section 411.”
— 720 ILCS 570/411.2(a)(5) — 1 case
People v. Williams, 2013 IL App (4th) 120313 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). “Drug Assessment (Class X) 720 ILCS 570/411.2(a)(1)/ Cannabis 720 ILCS 550/10.”
— 720 ILCS 570/411.2(a)(6) — 3 cases
People v. Williams, 2013 IL App (4th) 120313 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). “Drug Assessment (Class X) 720 ILCS 570/411.2(a)(1)/ Cannabis 720 ILCS 550/10.”
People v. Youngblood, 849 N.E.2d 423 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “Notably, the court quoted subsection (f) (720 ILCS 570/411.2 (f) (West 2002)), which refers to the assessment as a "penalty" and states that "`[n]othing in this Section shall be deemed to affect or suspend any other fines, restitution costs, forfeitures or assessments imposed…”
People v. Youngblood, 849 N.E.2d 423 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006).
— 720 ILCS 570/411.2(a)(l) — 2 cases
People v. Orta, 836 N.E.2d 811 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). “2(a)(1) of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act (720 ILCS 570/411.2(a)(l) (West 2002)). DECISION I.”
People v. Youngblood, 849 N.E.2d 423 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006).
— 720 ILCS 570/411.2(b) — 5 cases
People v. Fort, 839 N.E.2d 1064 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). “) 720 ILCS 570/411.2(0 (West 2002). Assuming the existence of ambiguity, we believe there are two sound reasons for adopting the results reached by the appellate court decisions.”
People v. Orta, 836 N.E.2d 811 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). “2(a)(1) of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act (720 ILCS 570/411.2(a)(l) (West 2002)). DECISION I.”
People v. Fort, 869 N.E.2d 950 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). “) 720 ILCS 570/411.2© (West 2002). Assuming the existence of ambiguity, we believe there are two sound reasons for adopting the results reached by the appellate court decisions.”
People v. Fort (Ill. App. Ct. 2005).
People v. Orta (Ill. App. Ct. 2005).
— 720 ILCS 570/411.2(e) — 11 cases
People v. Jones, 861 N.E.2d 967 (Ill. 2006). “2 of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act (720 ILCS 570/411.2 (West 2004)). The court noted that the resolution of this issue depended on whether the charge was a “fine” or “something else, like a fee or court cost, which is a charge taxed by a court, compensatory in nature.”
People v. Fort, 839 N.E.2d 1064 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). “) 720 ILCS 570/411.2(0 (West 2002). Assuming the existence of ambiguity, we believe there are two sound reasons for adopting the results reached by the appellate court decisions.”
People v. Fort, 869 N.E.2d 950 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). “) 720 ILCS 570/411.2© (West 2002). Assuming the existence of ambiguity, we believe there are two sound reasons for adopting the results reached by the appellate court decisions.”
People v. Youngblood, 849 N.E.2d 423 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “Notably, the court quoted subsection (f) (720 ILCS 570/411.2 (f) (West 2002)), which refers to the assessment as a "penalty" and states that "`[n]othing in this Section shall be deemed to affect or suspend any other fines, restitution costs, forfeitures or assessments imposed…”
People v. McNeal, 847 N.E.2d 842 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006).
— 720 ILCS 570/411.2(f) — 6 cases
People v. Jones, 861 N.E.2d 967 (Ill. 2006). “2 of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act (720 ILCS 570/411.2 (West 2004)). The court noted that the resolution of this issue depended on whether the charge was a “fine” or “something else, like a fee or court cost, which is a charge taxed by a court, compensatory in nature.”
People v. Fort, 839 N.E.2d 1064 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). “) 720 ILCS 570/411.2(0 (West 2002). Assuming the existence of ambiguity, we believe there are two sound reasons for adopting the results reached by the appellate court decisions.”
People v. Youngblood, 849 N.E.2d 423 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “Notably, the court quoted subsection (f) (720 ILCS 570/411.2 (f) (West 2002)), which refers to the assessment as a "penalty" and states that "`[n]othing in this Section shall be deemed to affect or suspend any other fines, restitution costs, forfeitures or assessments imposed…”
People v. Youngblood, 849 N.E.2d 423 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006).
People v. Jones (Ill. 2006).
— 720 ILCS 570/411.2(g) — 2 cases
People v. Jackson, 874 N.E.2d 592 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). “Accordingly, we vacate two of the three mandatory drug assessment fees imposed upon defendant and leave standing only a single assessment of $3,000, the assessment imposed upon the highest class offense of which defendant was convicted.”
People v. Jackson (Ill. App. Ct. 2007).
— 720 ILCS 570/411.2(h) — 5 cases
People v. Youngblood, 849 N.E.2d 423 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “Notably, the court quoted subsection (f) (720 ILCS 570/411.2 (f) (West 2002)), which refers to the assessment as a "penalty" and states that "`[n]othing in this Section shall be deemed to affect or suspend any other fines, restitution costs, forfeitures or assessments imposed…”
People v. Fort, 839 N.E.2d 1064 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). “) 720 ILCS 570/411.2(0 (West 2002). Assuming the existence of ambiguity, we believe there are two sound reasons for adopting the results reached by the appellate court decisions.”
People v. Gathing, 778 N.E.2d 215 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). “720 ILCS 570/411.2(a) (West 2000). Payment of the assessment is to be forwarded by the circuit court clerk to the State Treasurer for deposit in the Drug Treatment Fund “within the State Treasury.”
People v. Youngblood, 849 N.E.2d 423 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006).
People v. Gathing (Ill. App. Ct. 2002).
— 720 ILCS 570/411.2(i) — 1 case
People v. Duff, 872 N.E.2d 46 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.