People v. Woznick

• Decision Date: 26 February 1991
• Docket Number: No. 4-90-0493,4-90-0493
• Citation: 154 Ill.Dec. 425,209 Ill.App.3d 1061,568 N.E.2d 425
• Parties: , 154 Ill.Dec. 425 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Warren R. WOZNICK, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 425

568 N.E.2d 425

209 Ill.App.3d 1061, 154 Ill.Dec. 425

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Warren R. WOZNICK, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 4-90-0493.

Appellate Court of Illinois,

Fourth District.

Feb. 26, 1991.

Daniel D. Yuhas, Deputy Defender, Office of State Appellate Defender, Springfield, Arden J. Lang, Asst. Defender, for defendant-appellant.

Thomas J. Difanis, State's Atty., Urbana, Kenneth R. Boyle, Director, State's Attys. Appellate Prosecutor, Springfield, Robert J. Biderman, Deputy Director, James Majors, Staff Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Justice McCULLOUGH delivered the opinion of the court:

On June 22, 1990, the circuit court of Champaign County, pursuant to a revocation of the defendant's probation, sentenced the defendant to four years in the Department of Corrections. The defendant was given credit for time served, 149 days, which was ordered as a part of his original probation, and also was given credit for time served for the period of time from the filing of the petition to revoke probation, April 30, 1990, to and including June 22, 1990, the date that he was sentenced on the probation revocation. The defendant appeals, asserting that he was entitled to credit for time served from January 24, 1990, to and through April 29, 1990, the day preceding the day the petition to revoke probation was filed. We affirm.

The defendant had been originally sentenced in this case, Champaign County case No. 88-CF-1160, to two years' probation on January 4, 1989, and, as part of the probation order, he was to be incarcerated for 149 days and was given credit for the 149 days served. On January 24, 1990, the defendant was arrested for the charges of unlawful use of weapons, unlawful possession of weapons by a felon, and unlawful possession of cannabis, docketed Champaign County case No. 90-CF-144. A petition to revoke probation filed by the State on April 30, 1990, alleged the unlawful possession of cannabis on two different occasions and the unlawful use of a weapon. The defendant admitted to the charges of unlawful possession of cannabis as alleged in the petition to revoke and the State dismissed Champaign County case Nos. 90-CM-69 and 90-CF-144.

The defendant argues that he is entitled to credit from January 24, 1990, to April 29, 1990, for time spent in custody in the Champaign County case No. 90-CF-144. The trial court denied the defendant credit against the sentence on the revocation of probation for the time January 24, 1990, to April 29, 1990.

The defendant is not entitled to credit for time served in custody on an unrelated charge. The defendant in this case was sentenced for aggravated battery, not for the charges which were filed as a result of the arrest on January 24, 1990. Section 5-8-7(b) of the Unified Code of Corrections (Code) provides in part: "The offender shall be given credit on the determinate sentence * * * for time spent in custody as a result of the offense for which the sentence was imposed * * *." Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 38, par. 1005-8-7(b).

The defendant was sentenced on the probation revocation for the offense of aggravated battery. The charges which were filed as a result of the arrest on January 24, 1990, were for unrelated charges of possession of cannabis and the unlawful use of a weapon.

As stated in People v. Leggans (1986), 140 Ill.App.3d 268, 271, 94 Ill.Dec. 615, 617, 488 N.E.2d 614, 616:

"Defendant contends that he should also receive credit for September 22, the date of his arrest, and September 23. However, he was arrested on a battery charge that was an allegation in the amended petition to revoke probation. The initial arrest on the battery charge was unrelated to the aggravated battery proceeding that is the subject of this appeal, and defendant should not receive credit on the offense upon his conviction in the case at bar for September 22 and 23."

The appellate court in People v. Kane (1985), 136 Ill.App.3d 1030, 1036, 91 Ill.Dec. 737, 741, 484 N.E.2d 296, 300, said:

"In applying the above statutory provisions to the case at bar, we conclude that the defendant is not entitled to credit for the time which she spent in custody on the unrelated offense (unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver). Subsection (b) of the statute only requires the granting of credit for time spent in custody as a result of the offense for which the sentence was imposed."

As in the instant case, the Kane court found that the defendant "should not receive credit for the two days she spent in jail for unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver" in a separate case. Kane, 136 Ill.App.3d at 1036,...