NO. 4-01-0020

	IN THE APPELLATE COURT

	OF ILLINOIS

	FOURTH DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,	)	Appeal from

	Plaintiff-Appellee,			)	Circuit Court of

	v.			     		)	Ford County

JOHN D. REED,			 			)	No. 98CF23

	Defendant-Appellant.		)	

	                     		)	Honorable

							)	Stephen R. Pacey,

							)	Judge Presiding.

_______________________________________________________________

	JUSTICE KNECHT delivered the opinion of the court:

	In September 1998, defendant, John Reed, pleaded guilty to residential burglary (720 ILCS 5/19-3 (West 1998)) and,

because of his prior criminal history, the trial court sentenced

him to 10 years in prison, with sentence credit for 84 days

served, and ordered him to pay a $100 reimbursement fee for the

services of the public defender pursuant to section 113-3.1 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/113-3.1 (West

1998)) and a $40 fee under the Crime Victims Compensation Act

(740 ILCS 45/1 through 20 (West 1998)).  The Illinois Department

of Corrections was ordered to withhold 50% of defendant's monthly

income and remit that amount to the Ford County circuit clerk to

be applied to outstanding fees and costs.  

	Defendant filed neither a motion to reconsider sentence

nor a direct appeal.  Instead, in March 2000, he filed a pro se postconviction petition under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act

(725 ILCS 5/122-1 through 122-8 (West 2000)).  The petition

alleged ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to ade quately investigate and prepare defendant's case for trial

resulting in defendant having no choice but to plead guilty. 

After appointing counsel to represent defendant and hearing

arguments, the trial court dismissed defendant's petition.  

	Defendant appeals, arguing that (1) the trial court

erred by ordering him to pay the $100 reimbursement fee without

first conducting a hearing to determine his ability to pay, (2)

ordering him to pay a fee under the Crime Victims Compensation

Act, (3) ordering the Department of Corrections to withhold 50%

of his wages for court fees and costs, and (4) failing to give

him the proper sentence credit.  We affirm.

	The State contends both that the issues raised on

appeal by defendant are not matters of substantial deprivation of

constitutional rights cognizable in postconviction proceedings

but matters of statutory right only and defendant has forfeited the issues raised on appeal by not raising these matters until

this appeal from the court's denial of his postconviction peti

tion.  We agree.

	The Post-Conviction Hearing Act permits defendants to

file postconviction petitions to establish "a substantial depri

vation of federal or state constitutional rights."  People v. Haynes, 192 Ill. 2d 437, 464, 737 N.E.2d 169, 184 (2000).  Post -conviction proceedings are not meant to be a screening mechanism

to correct any and all mistakes not previously corrected.  The

issues raised by defendant all involve rights or matters created

by statute involving the assessment or payment of fees and the

credit allowed on a prison sentence.  We have consistently held such issues are statutory only and not of constitutional magni

tude and, thus, not subject to scrutiny under the Post-Conviction

Hearing Act.  People v. Griffin, 321 Ill. App. 3d 425, 428, 748 N.E.2d 1235, 1238 (2001) (failure to hold hearing in regard to

defendant's financial ability to reimburse state for appointed

counsel's fee violates statutory law but does not constitute any deprivation of constitutional rights, much less a "substantial" one); People v. Guerrero, 311 Ill. App. 3d 968, 970, 725 N.E.2d 783, 784-85 (2000) (denial of $5-per-day credit against fine

imposed does not establish substantial deprivation of federal or

state constitutional rights; nevertheless the court but awardeding

credit); People v. Bates, 179 Ill. App. 3d 705, 709, 534 N.E.2d 1019, 1021 (1989) (issue of two days' sentence credit not of

constitutional stature).

	Additionally, none of defendant's objections to his

sentence were presented previously, either in a motion to recon

sider sentence, a direct appeal, or in his postconviction peti

tion.  Statutory rights are subject to waiver where they could

have been raised in the trial court or on direct appeal but were

not.  Bates, 179 Ill. App. 3d at 709, 534 N.E.2d at 1021.  Defendant's contentions of error, even if they were of constitu

tional magnitude, are forfeited.  As we have previously stated, 

"[d]efendant does not cite, nor are we aware of, any case in

which the [Post-Conviction Hearing Act] has been construed as

permitting a defendant to raise on appeal from the dismissal of a

postconviction petition an issue he never raised in that peti

tion.  This court will not be the first to so hold."  Griffin, 321 Ill. App. 3d at 428, 748 N.E.2d at 1238.

	For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court's

judgment.

	Affirmed.

	COOK and STEIGMANN, JJ., concur.