People v. Jones

• Decision Date: 24 December 2009
• Docket Number: No. 1-08-1311.,1-08-1311.
• Citation: 921 N.E.2d 768,336 Ill. Dec. 912
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald JONES, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

921 N.E.2d 768

336 Ill. Dec. 912

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald JONES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1-08-1311.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Sixth Division.

December 24, 2009.

Patricia Unsinn, Deputy Defender, for Appellant.

Anita M. Alvarez, State's Attorney, for Appellee.

Justice ROBERT E. GORDON delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendant Ronald Jones was convicted of a Class 3 felony theft of more than $300 and less than $10,000 of property (720 ILCS 5/16-1(a)(1) (West 2008)), following a bench trial. After hearing factors in aggravation and mitigation, the trial court sentenced defendant to five years of incarceration in the Illinois Department of Corrections. Defendant raises five issues on appeal, and requests that this court: (1) correct the mittimus to appropriately reflect the time defendant spent in custody prior to sentencing; (2) vacate the $20 preliminary examination fee (55 ILCS 5/4-2002.1(a) (West 2008)); (3) reduce the amount of the fine imposed pursuant to the Violent Crime Victims Assistance Act (725 ILCS 240/10 (West 2008)) from $20 to $4; (4) vacate the $10 arrestee's medical costs assessment (730 ILCS 125/17 (West 2006)); and (5) grant $5 of credit against defendant's fines for each day spent in custody prior to sentencing (725 ILCS 5/110-14 (West 2008)).

We affirm the decision of the circuit court of Cook County with the following modifications to the mittimus and to the fines, fees, and costs order: (1) the clerk should amend the mittimus to reflect 212 days of presentencing credit for time served; (2) we affirm the assessment of the preliminary examination fee (55 ILCS 5/4-2002.1(a) (West 2008)); (3) the clerk should amend the fines, fees, and costs order to reflect a $4 Violent Crime Victims Assistance Fund fee (725 ILCS 240/10(b) (West 2008)); (4) we affirm the assessment of the $10 Arrestee's Medical Costs Fund fine (730 ILCS 125/17 (West 2006)); and (5) defendant's $30 Children's Advocacy Center fine should be offset by defendant's presentence credit for time served. This order reduces defendant's total amount owed to $539 (725 ILCS 5/110-14(a) (West 2008)).

BACKGROUND

Defendant does not raise any challenge to the validity of his conviction or sentence on appeal. Therefore, we state briefly the facts underlying his conviction.

At trial, Chicago police officer Gregory Unizycki testified that on the morning of October 8, 2007, a woman flagged his squad car near a garbage sorting facility in Chicago's Garfield Park neighborhood. At the woman's direction, Officer Unizycki drove through an open gate in the fence surrounding the property, and approached a van parked near a vacant building. Numerous "no trespassing" signs were posted along the outside of the fence. Officer Unizycki testified that he observed Christopher Brown, Andre Hopkins, and defendant holding metal piping and loading it into the van. At this time, the van contained some 40 to 50 pieces of metal pipes similar to those Officer Unizycki observed being held by defendant. When Officer Unizycki asked the men what they were doing, defendant responded that he knew that they should not be at the sorting facility, but that they were just trying to make some money.

Brian Sleman, the manager of the sorting facility, testified that he was approached by Chicago police officers on the morning of October 8, 2007, and asked to identify the metal pipes in the back of the van. Mr. Sleman identified the pipes as the same kind that were used in the vacant building near which the van was parked. Mr. Sleman also testified that he did not recognize the van, and that defendant did not have permission to be on the premises or to park the van on the property. In addition, Mr. Sleman testified that the pipes were damaged as a result of having been pulled from the vacant building. The damage was so great that the pipes were unusable and could only be sold as scrap. The parties stipulated that a receipt would show that Mr. Sleman later received $536.80 in payment from third parties for the pipes recovered from the van.

Defendant testified on his own behalf and denied that he removed the metal pipes from the vacant building in the sorting facility. Instead, defendant testified that a neighborhood woman had paid defendant and two friends to remove scrap metal from her property, which defendant was dumping at the sorting facility when Officer Unizycki arrived. Defendant also testified that he did not observe any "no trespassing" signs around the perimeter of the sorting facility.

The trial court found defendant's testimony not credible and found him guilty of Class 3 felony theft of more than $300 and less than $10,000 of property (720 ILCS 5/16-1(a)(1) (West 2008)). Defendant's May 7, 2008, sentencing order reflects that he is entitled to presentencing credit of 183 days to apply to his 5-year sentence. Defendant's sentence also included various fines, fees, and costs, which totaled $585. The fines, fees, and costs order included a $20 preliminary hearing fee (55 ILCS 5/4-2002.1(a) (West 2008)); a $20 Violent Crime Victims Assistance Fund fee (725 ILCS 240/10(c)(1) (West 2008)); a $10 Arrestee's Medical Costs Fund fee (730 ILCS 125/17 (West 2006)); and a $30 Children's Advocacy Center fine (55 ILCS 5/5-1101(f-5) (West 2008)). This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS

On appeal, defendant does not contest the trial court's determination of guilt and argues only that we should correct the mittimus to reflect accurately his presentencing time served, and vacate and offset certain fines and fees imposed by the trial court. All of the issues raised on appeal involve questions of statutory interpretation, which this court reviews de novo. People v. Caballero, 228 Ill.2d 79, 82, 319 Ill.Dec. 364, 885 N.E.2d 1044 (2008).

1. Presentence Credit for Time Served

Defendant asks that we correct the mittimus to reflect accurately the amount of time served before sentencing, arguing that the trial court erroneously entered 183 days of credit for time served, when defendant was entitled to credit for 213 days. In its appellate brief, the State concedes the error but argues that defendant is entitled to credit for only 212 days because the date of sentencing should not be included in the credit. Thus, the parties' dispute concerns only one day of credit.

The record indicates, and both parties agree, that defendant was arrested on October 8, 2007, and sentenced on May 7, 2008, when the mittimus was issued. Therefore, defendant is entitled to 212 days' presentencing credit if the day of sentencing is not included or 213 days' credit if it is. 730 ILCS 5/5-8-7 (West 2006). At issue in this case is whether defendant may receive both presentencing and postsentencing credit for the same day, because on the day of sentencing defendant was incarcerated both presentencing and postsentencing. The wording of the statute does not explicitly state whether or not a defendant may receive both presentencing and postsentencing credit for the sentencing day.

Section 5-8-7 of the Unified Code of Corrections states in relevant part:

"(a) A sentence of imprisonment shall commence on the date on which the offender is received by the Department [of Corrections] or the institution at which the sentence is to be served.

(b) The offender shall be given credit on the determinate sentence or maximum term and the minimum period of imprisonment for time spent in custody as a result of the offense for which the sentence was imposed." 730 ILCS 5/5-8-7 (West 2006).

In an exhaustive opinion, the first division of this district has recently explored this issue in great detail. People v. Williams, 394 Ill.App.3d 480, 334 Ill.Dec. 721, 917 N.E.2d 547 (2009). The Fourth District has repeatedly held that a defendant is not entitled to presentencing credit for the day of sentencing. See Williams, 394 Ill.App.3d at 481-82, 334 Ill.Dec. 721, 917 N.E.2d 547 (citing Fourth District cases denying defendants presentencing credit for the day of sentencing). However, other districts, including the First District, have held that a defendant may receive presentencing credit for the day of sentencing. See Williams, 394 Ill.App.3d at 482, 334 Ill.Dec. 721, 917 N.E.2d 547 (citing cases granting defendant presentence credit for the day of sentencing). After reviewing numerous appellate court cases discussing whether a defendant could receive presentencing credit for the day of sentencing, the Williams court identified two competing rationales underlying the divergent strands of cases:

"The cases that include the day of sentencing in the presentencing credit apparently follow the undisputed rule that a portion of a day spent in custody adds a day of credit by implicitly acknowledging that a defendant in custody spends a portion of the sentencing day in custody prior to sentencing. The cases excluding the day of sentencing from the credit seek to prevent a defendant from receiving double credit: one day under section 5-8-7 for the portion of the sentencing day spent in presentencing detention and one day under section 3-6-3 for the portion of the same day spent after issuance of the mittimus commences the prison sentence in the Department's legal (if not physical) custody." Williams, 394 Ill.App.3d at 483, 334 Ill.Dec. 721, 917 N.E.2d 547.

The Williams court found the concern over double crediting a defendant more persuasive and held that the defendant in that case was not entitled to presentencing credit for the day of sentencing. Williams, 394 Ill.App.3d at 483, 334 Ill. Dec. 721, 917 N.E.2d 547.

We follow the precedent set by this district in Williams, and find that defendant was not entitled to presentencing credit for the date of sentencing. In addition, the fact that the United Code of Corrections demarcates two separate periods for calculating defendant's sentencing credit suggests that a defendant should not receive credit twice for a single day. In ...