THIRD DIVISION May 30, 2007
No. 1-04- 2219

THE PEOPLE OFTHE STATE OFILLINO IS, ) A ppe al f rom ) the C i

rcui t Court Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, ) o f Co o k C o un t y. ) v. ) No. 03 CR 27692 ) LEON AR D JA MISON , ) Ho no r ab le ) Patrick J. Morse, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) Judge Presidin g.

PR ESIDI NG JU STI CETH EIS de li

v ered th e op i ni on of th e c our t: Fo llowing a be nch t rial, d efenda nt Leo nar d Ja mison wa s co nvicte d o f burg lary and
se nt en ce d t o six ye ar s’ impr iso nme nt . On ap pe al, de fen da nt ar gu ed : ( 1) t he t r ial c o ur t er r ed in i m pos i ng a $2 0 f i n e a gai n st h i m th at was n ot pe rm i tted b y l aw ; (2 ) the c our

t er re d i n f ai li ng to
aw ar d h im $5

- pe r - da y pr es en t en ce cr ed it t o wa r d t he $4 ad dit io na l pe na lt y as se ss ed ag ain st him; and ( 3) t he co mpulso ry ext ra ct ion and per pet ual st or ing o f his DNA und er sec t ion 5 -4 -3 of t he Un i f i ed Cod e of Cor re cti on s (th e C ode ) (7 30IL CS 5/ 5- 4- 3 ( W est 20 02 )) v i olate d h i s f our th
am endm ent righ t t o be free f

rom unreasona

ble searche s. We af

fi rmed h is convi ction an d sentence and m odif ie d the sentenci

ng order to refl

ect hi s enti

tlem ent to pr esentenc e credi

t t oward t he $4 pena lty in Peop l e v . Ja

m i son, 3 65 I ll. App. 3d 7 78, 850 N. E. 2d 8 46 ( 200 6) . S ubse que nt ly, the suprem e court decided People v . Jones , 22 3 I ll . 2d 56 9, 8 61 N. E.2 d 9 67 (2 00 6) . Pu rsua n t to i ts sup er visor y aut hor ity, t he ap pellat e co ur t was dire ct ed t o va cat e its judg ment in Ja m i son and1-04-2219

2

re co nsid er t he ju dg ment in light o f Jones . F or the f oll owi ng reasons, we af

f i rm the j udg men t of the c i rcui t court as m

odi f i ed. Be ca us e d ef

en da nt do es no t ch alle ng e t he ev id en ce t o su st ain his co nvi ct io n, we br ief ly set forth a sum

ma ry of the fac ts underl yi ng hi s convi ction. The ev

ide nce at trial

establ is hed that defen dant was observed closin

g the door of Mark W

heel er’s Ford Expl

orer o n Novem

ber 30, 2003. W he eler the n di scovered th

ree re nted DVDs were m i ssi ng f rom th e f ront se at of h

i s ca r. Wh en def endan t was stopped by polic e shortly thereafter f

or a t raff ic violation, W

heel er in form ed the o ff icer of the t heft. T he plastic bag cont aini ng these D VDs and t he receipt bearing Wheel er’s name were found in defendant’s car . Defendant did not have permissi on t o ent er Wheeler’s vehi cle or take t he DVDs. Af ter t he court found def

endan t guil ty of b urglary , it deni ed defe ndan t’s motion f

or a new trial. At a subsequent sentencin g hearin g, t he court then sentenced defendan t as a Class X offend er t o s ix years’ impr isonment and a sses sed co st s and fees a gainst defend ant t ot aling $5 49
. 00
. Fo llo win g s en t en cin g, de fen da nt did no t file a mo t io n t o r ec o nsid er o rr ed uc e h is sentence and thus, never raised an obj ection regard in g fi nes or credit du e to hi

m. In f act, defense counsel i nf ormed the t rial

cour t o f the appropr iate monetary charges to be assessed against defen dant stating, “Judge, I’ll prepare a D NA order, and the costs are going to be $549,00.” De fen da nt t he n file d t his t imely app ea l. AN AL YSIS Defe ndan t contends that t he com

puls ory extraction an

d subse quent storing of h

is DNA pursuant to sect ion 5-4-3 of the C ode (730 ILCS 5/5-4-3 (West 2004)) co nsti tut es an1-04-2219

1 We note tha t thi s $4 a ddi tion al pen al ty was a dded to the statute e f

f ecti ve Jun e 20, 2 003. Pu b. Ac t 93
- 32 , eff. Ju ne 20 , 20 03 ( ad din g 7 30 I LC S 5 /5
- 9- 1( c- 9)
. T hu s, t his s ec t io n w as in eff ect at t he tim

e of def endan t’s crim e and conv

iction. However, the legis la ture later eli

mi nated sec t ion 5 -9 -1 (c -9 ) in its ent iret y and r eplac ed it wit h “(Blank )” effect ive Augu st 22, 200 5. Pu b. Act 94-652, e f

f . Au gust 22 , 2005 ( am

endi ng 7 30 IL CS 5/5 -9-1(c -9)). 3 un r ea so nable se ar ch , vio lat ing his fo ur t h a men dme nt r igh t s. Ou rsu pr eme co ur t ha s r eje ct ed t his
exac t claim and up held t he co nst itu t ionalit y of t he st at ut e in Pe o ple v. Ga rvin , No
. 99 03 1 ( I ll. Marc h 23 , 2006) . The

ref ore, def endan t’s a rgum en t fa i l s. Defe ndan t next contends that the circui t cour t erred in f

aili ng to aff ord him a $5-per-day
cr edit aga inst t he $4 add itio nal pena lty for t he T ra ffi c and Criminal Convict ion S ur char ge Fu nd (730 ILCS 5/5 -9-1(c -9) (West 2004)) 1 f or the 31 day

s he sp en t in custody pri or to senten

ci ng. Defe ndan t did not ask the ci

rcuit court t o offset thi s m onetary asse ssm

ent wi th a $5-per-day
cr edit for t he da ys he spe nt in cust od y. Ne ver t heless, we a ddr ess t his issue be cau se d efenda nt may raise t he issue of c re dit on a ppe al even t hou gh he ha s no t first app lied for t he cr edit in the ci rcui t court. People v . Woodard, 175 Il l . 2d 435 , 457-5 8, 677 N .E.2d 935 , 946 (1 997). In People v . Jones , 223 Il l . 2d 569 , 587, 86 1 N.E.2d 967, 97 8 (200 6), our su

prem e court hel d that t he presen

tence credi

t under section 110-14 of the C ode of Crim in al Procedure o f 1963 (72 5 ILCS 5/1 10- 14 (W est 2004), operate s to of f set the $4 C ri m i na l /Traf f i c C onv i cti on Surcharge under t he Uni

fi ed Code o f Correct ions (730 ILCS 5/5- 9-1(c- 9) (West 20 04). T hus, def endan t’s $4 surcha rge is of f set here b y his pre sen

tenc e cre di

t. De fen da nt ne xt ch alle ng es t he t r ial c o ur t ’s impo sit io n o f t he $2 0 fin e fo rt he Vio len t Cr ime Vic tim s Assis tance Fun d (725 ILCS 240/10(c)(2) (West 2004)). He argues that it was erroneously

assess ed becaus e the $20 fi ne m ay only be i mposed i f “ no ot her f in es” are i mposed1-04-2219

4

( 72 5 I LC S 2 40 /1 0( c) ( 2) ( We st 20 04 ) ) , an d t he t r ial c o ur t impo se d t he $4 Cr iminal/ T r affic Convi ction Surcharge. The sup re me co ur t in Joneswasnot cal l ed up on to addre ss th

i s sp eci f i c que stion. Al though defen

dant is correct that t he $20 f

in e applie s onl

y w here "n o ot her f in e i s i mposed" (725 ILCS 240/1 0(c) (W

est 2004)), we

conti nue to hol d tha

t he m i sconstrues

the n ature of the $ 4 f i ne . The stat ute pr ovides i

n pertinent part as follows: “(c-9) There sh

all be added to every fine impose d in sent encing for a cr imi

nal * * * offense , * * * a n additional penal ty of $4 impose d. * * * Su ch additional pena lty o f $4 sha ll be asses sed by the court im

posin g the fine an d s ha ll be c o llec t ed by t he cir cu it cl erk in addition to any other fine , c os t s, fe es, and p enalt ies in the case. * * * The additional penalty of $4 shall be in addition to any other fine , costs, fees, and pen al ties an d shall not reduce or affect the distribution of any other fine , costs, fees, and pen al ties.” 730 ILCS 5/5-9- 1(c-9)(We st 2004 ). (Em phasi s ad ded). Thu s, t he plain langu age of t he st at ut e pr ovid es t hat t he $4 asse ssment is an amo unt t o be surcharged as a

n addi tional fi ne; it i s consi

dered after

the im position of any

basi c fi nes provi ded for by ot her legi slation. Accordi ngl y, i n the presen

t case, after the im

position of the $20 f

in e, an addi tional penal ty of $4 was

surcharged, and di

d not “reduce or aff

ect the distri

bution” of

the $20 fi ne. Theref

ore, t he ci rcuit court pro perly

assess ed both the $20 fi

ne an d the $4 addi

tional pen al ty.1-04-2219

5

Ac co r din gly, pu r su an t t o se ct io n 1 10
- 14 , de fen da nt ’s $4 ch ar ge sha ll be o ffse t by his pres en ten ce cred i t. Th e s en ten ci ng order of

th e c i rcui t cou rt of Coo k C oun

ty sh al l b e m odi f i ed to ref l ect this of

f set. We otherw

i se af f i rm def endan t’s c onv i cti on an d senten ce. Af fi rmed as modifi ed. KA RNEZIS and HOFFMA

N, JJ., concurrin

g.