Docket No . 104216.



### IN THE SUPRE ME COURT OF THE STAT E OF ILLIN OIS

THE PEOPLE OFTHE STATE OFILLINO IS, Appellant, v.

EDUARDO CA

BALL ERO, Appel

le e.
Opinion filed February 7, 2008.

JUSTICE KARME IE R de livered t he judg ment o f the cou rt, wi th op inion. Justice s F itzg er ald, Kilbride, a nd Ga rman co ncur re d in t he judg ment a nd o pinion. Chi ef J ustice Th omasdis sented, wi

th opini on, joi ned b y J ustices Freem an an d Burke.

OPINI ON

The i ssuespresented by

this appeal are: (1) whet her a r eviewing courtma y gran t t he per diem mone

tary cre di t conf erred by se cti on 110–14 o f t he Co de o f Cr iminal Procedu re of 1963 ( 725 ILCS 5/110–14 (Wes t 200 2) ) t o a defend ant who fi rst appl i esf or i t on appeal from the dis mi ssal of his postconviction petition; an d (2) whether a defe ndan t may recei ve the per diem mone t ar y cr ed it conferred by se ct io n 1 10 –1 4 fo rt he t ime he wa s i nc arc era ted upon revocation of h

is bai l a fter convi ction unti l h is sentenci ng.-2- BACK GROUND Defend ant Eduardo Cabell ero was in

dicted for unl awful pos se ss i on

with i ntent to deliv

er 100 to 400 grams

of a s ubstance
co nt aining

cocain e. Af ter hi s a rrest, he spent two day i n j ai l, posted ba i l , and was

releas ed. A

j ury i n th e c i rc ui t cou rt of Du Page Cou n ty la ter con vi cte d h i m of t he o ffense and his bond was re vok ed t he sa me da y. He was reman

ded to jai l, wh

ere he rem

ai ned f or anaddi tional 116 da ys pri ort o s ent encing. He w as se nt ence d t o 1 4 year s’ impriso nment and, among othe

r thi ng s, f i ne d $6 ,30 0 b as ed

on the “ stre et val

ue ” of t he na r co t ics he wa s c o nvic ted o f posses si ng. On di

rect appeal defen dan t did not ra ise any issue involved in t his app eal and t he appe l l ate court af f i rmed h i s con vi cti on an d senten ce. Pe ople v

. Caballero , No. 2–03–0299 (2004) ( un pu blish ed o r de run de rSu pr eme Court Rul e 23). Defend ant la

ter file d a pro se p et it io n fo r p o st co nvict io n r elief, whi ch was di sm

is sed by th e tr ial c o ur t as fr ivo lo us an d p at en t ly wit hou t merit . O n app eal, defend ant ar gue d t hat t he trial court erred in dis mi ssi ng hi s petiti on because it su fficient ly alleg ed t he g ist o f a
con sti tuti on al claim of ineffect ive assist ance of c ou nsel. D efenda nt also cl ai med tha t pur suan t to se ction 1 10– 14, his st re et -va lue fine sho uld be r edu ced by $590 , w hich is $5 fo r e ach o f the 118 days he
was in cust od y prio r t o s ent encing. The appella te court aff

irm ed t he trial cou rt ’s dis

mi ssal of def endan t’s petition, b

ut held t hat defend ant was en ti tl ed to a $590 credi

t against hi s street-value

fi ne an d ordered t he cl erk of the ci rcu i t cou rt to m odif y the de f en da nt’ s s en ten ce . No. 2–05–0384 (unpubl

is hed order unde r Supre me Co ur t Rule 2 3) . We granted the S tat e’s peti

ti on f or l ea v e to appe al . 21 0 Il

l . 2d R. 3 15. For t he rea so ns t ha t fo llo w, t he jud gme nt o f t he ap pe llat e c o ur t is aff irm ed.

STAN

DA RD OF REVIEW Both of the i ssuesrais ed

on th i s a ppe al i nv ol ve the i nte rpreta ti on of Ill in ois statutes. The in

terpret ation of state st atutes i s a que sti on of la w, which this court r eviews de novo

. People v. Harr is , 224 Ill . 2d 115 , 12 3 (2 007 ); People v. Brooks , 221 Il l . 2d 381 , 388 (2 006).-3- AN AL YSIS Sec ti on 11 0– 14 pr o vid es in p er t in ent pa rt: “ A ny pers on in carceratedon a bailable offense who does not supply bail an d against wh o m a fi ne i s l evi ed on convi

ction of s uch off ense s hal l b e allowed
a cr ed it o f $5 fo r e ach d ay so incarc er at ed u po n app licatio n of t he def endan t.” 725 ILC S 5 /1 10– 14 ( West 200 2) . I n People v. Woodard , 175 Ill. 2d 435 , 4 57- 58 ( 199 7) , w e held t hat t he per diem monetary cr ed it allowe d up on a pplicat ion b y the de f en da nt u nd er s ec ti on 110–14 is mandat or y, it c anno t be wa ived and it ca n be r aised for t he firs t t ime o n a pp ea l. T he St at e a r gu es , ho we ve r , t ha t de fen da nt ’s cla im un der s ec ti on 110–1 4 i nvol ves a st at ut or y right and it is not co gnizable in a p o stc onv i cti on proceedin

g. The Post-Co nvi

ction Heari

ng Act (725 ILCS 5 /122–1 et seq . ( West 200 0) ) p ro vides a means by whi ch a defend ant may c o llat er ally at tac k h i s c onv i cti on or sente nc e f or violat ions of

f ederal or s tate

con sti tuti on al ri gh ts

. Peopl e v. Pendleton , 22 3 I ll. 2d

458 , 4 71 ( 200 6) . T o d emons t ra t e ent itlement to postco nvi

ction rel ie f, a def endan t must show that he has suf fered
a su bs tan ti al depri va ti on of f ederal or stat e constitutional

right s in the proceedin gs that pro duced the convi ct i on o r se nt ence being chal le nged. Pendleton , 22 3 I ll. 2d at 47 1. T he mo ne t ar y per di em cr ed it con f er re d b y se cti on 11 0– 14i s a

sta tutor y ri gh t. Woodard , 175 I ll. 2d at 45 7. Th e S t at e c o nclu de s fr om th is t ha t de fen da nt ’s cla im in volv es a statut ory right, not a c onstitut ional right, and it is, therefore, not cognizab le

in a postco nvi

ction proceedi

ng. Nei ther the Stat e nor the defen

dant has ci

ted a ny I ll

in ois cas es d e aling wit h a cla im fo ra mo ne t ar y per diem cre di t un der s ec ti on 110– 14 bei

ng i ni tial ly rais ed on an appeal

in a postco nvi

ct io n pr oc eed ingand w e have fou nd none. However, People v. Wren , 223 I ll. Ap p. 3d 72 2 (199 2), Pe o

p l e v

. A n d

re ws , 365 Ill . App. 3d 696 (2006 ), and Pe o

p l e v

. B ro wn , 371 Il

l. Ap p. 3d 97 2 (200 7), are appe l l ate court cases deal

in g with a senten

ci ng cre di t un der s ec ti on 5–8 –7( b) o f the Unified Co de o f Cor re ct ions ( 730 ILC S 5 /5 –8– 7( b) (West 2002) ) being r aised for t he first t ime on ap pea l in a postco nvi ction proceedi

ng. Section 5–8–7(b) provides that the offe nder shall be giv en cr ed it agains t his p r iso n se nt en ce fo rt ime spe nt in cust od y as a r esu lt o f the offense for whi

ch the sen tence wasimpose d. In Woodard , 175 Ill . 2d-4- at 457, we noted and ci

ted a number of c ase s in which t he se nt encing
cre dit in s ec t io n 5 –8 –7 ( b) wa s t r ea t ed simila r ly t o t he mo ne t ar y per diem cr ed it in se ct io n 11 0– 14 . W e find t hat t he r at io nale o f Wren, Andrews and B ro wn is persuas i ve to the i ssue of

an appl i cation f or a monetary cr ed it un de rse ct io n 1 10 –1 4 b ein g r ais ed fo rt he firs t t ime on an appeal

in a postco nvi

ction he arin

g. In Wren the court stated: “Fi na lly, defen

dant contends thathe is e nt it led t o cr ed it f or t he origi nal day sp en t in custody i n thi s m atter and argues that
cou nsel’s f ai l ure to raise

thi s iss uei n p ost-c onv

i cti on proc eedi ngsco nst itu t es ineffect ive assist ance . A se nt encing
cr ed it is sue of thi s type is not appropr ia tely considered

in an app eal fro m the dis

mi ssal of a post-conviction petition whi ch did not raise the issue, but i nstead sh ould be rais ed by fi li ng a moti on to am end m ittim us i n the trial co ur t . H ow ever , ‘in t he i n terests o f an o r de r ly

ad m i ni stra ti on of j ustice’ [citation], we wil l treat defen

dant’s request as a m

ot ion to ame

nd m ittim us and consider it because

an am ended m ittim us ma y b e i ssued at
an y tim e. [Ci tation .]” Wren , 223 Ill . App. 3d at 731. The cour t t hen deci

ded that defendan

t was en ti tled to an addi

tional day of credi t. It aff irm ed the j udg m en

t of t he t rial co ur t dismissing defendant’s postcon

v i cti on peti ti onand r emande d t he ca use t o t he cir cu it court f

or is sua nc e of an am ended m i ttim us. Wren , 22 3 I ll. App. 3d at 731. In A n d re ws defend ant was ent itled t o 1 13 d ays o f sent encing
cr edit , bu t due t o a clerica l err or in the p re sent ence invest igat ion, he
was onl y gi ve n a pre sente nc e c red i t of 112 day s. A n d re ws , 36 5 I ll. App. 3d at 6 97. Th e c l ai

m f or th e addi

ti ona l da y of pr es en t en ce cr ed it
was not made i

n the trial court or o n di

rect appeal of

hi s cri mi nal
co nvictio n. Defe

ndan t file d a pro se postco nvi

ction petition and l

ater his ap po in

ted cou ns el f i l ed an am en de d pe ti ti on f or postcon

vi cti on re lief. Andr ews , 365 Ill . App. 3d at 698. Neither petition ma de referen ce to the sentenci

ng-credi t erro r. The trial

court deni

ed defendant’s po st co nvic t io n p et it io n. T he so le i ss uerai se d on appe al of t he den ial o f t he po st co nvic t io n p et it io n w as t he se nt en cin g- cr ed it
error. The State argued t hat defe ndan t waived this

is sue bec aus e he fai le d to rai se i t in his postcon

vi cti on petiti

on. A n d re ws , 36 5 I ll. App. 3d at 698.-5- The A n d re ws co ur t held t hat unlik e t he d efe nd an t s in People v. Jones , 211 Il

l . 2 d 14 0 (2004), and People v. Jones , 213 Ill . 2d 498 (2004 ), who wereattempting to raise new consti

tut iona l chal len ges, An drews wa s m

ere l y atte m pti ng to a ssert a d iffer en t an d p ur ely statutory rig ht t o full cr ed it fo r his pr ese nt ence incarc er at ion. A n d re ws , 365 Ill . Ap

p. 3d a t 699. The court

st at ed t ha t it s ho ldin g is inacc or d wit h, a nd qu ot ed, t he ho lding in Wren

. A n d re ws , 36 5 I ll

. App

. 3d at 699-700. T he A n d re ws cou rt al so n oted th at People v

. Reed , 335 Ill . App. 3d 1038 (2003), held that an is sue of a se

ntence credi t di d n ot i n v ol v e a su b sta n ti al de pri v ati on of a c on sti tuti ona l ri gh t, and deem

ed the i ssuewa ive d w he r e it was f irst rai sed on appeal f rom t he d ismissa l o f apostco nvi ction petition. The court co ncl uded that the better reasonedand m ore j udi ci al l y ef f i ci en t proc ed ure s f ol l ow t he log ic anno unce d in Wren. A n d re ws , 365 Ill . App. 3d at 700. In B ro wn t he de fendant co nt end ed for t he first t ime in a suppl em ental br ief o n app ea l in

hi s p ostc onv

i cti on pr oc eed ing t hat he
was entitled to 419 days of presen tence cr edi

t, rather than the 355 da ys reflected in the mi

tt im us. T he St at e d id n o t r es po nd t o t his suppl em ental br ief. Th e a

ppe l l atecou

rt i n i ts ori gi na l opi ni on (People
v. B ro wn , No. 1–04–1943 ( 2006) (unpubl is hed order un de rSu pr eme CourtRul e 23)) noted t ha t t he se nt en cin g c r ed it is a r ight cr eat ed by sta tute and h el d it wasnot a

n i ss ueof constitutional

ma gni tude subj ect to scr ut iny i

n a po st co nvictio n pr oc eed ing, c iting People v. Reed , 335 I ll. Ap p. 3d 10 38, 103 9-40 (2 003), and People v. Bates , 17 9 I ll. App. 3d 705 , 7 09 ( 198 9) . T he B ro wn court al so noted t hat despi te several oppor tunities t o r aise t he issue , d efenda nt never ra ised it in the tri al
cou rt, on direct appe al , or i n h i s p ostc onv

i cti on p eti ti on or suppl em ental post convicti on pet ition, and that he raised i t for t he f irst ti m e in the supplem

ental brief. The

court , therefore, found the i ssue had been forfe ited an

d dis tingui shed People v. Woodard , 17 5 I ll. 2d 435, on th e g rou n d th at Wo odard

was not based upon proceedi ngs under t he Po st -Co nvictio n Hea ring Act and t hat it mer ely held tha t t he
cr ed it may

be al l owe d if req ue ste d f orthe f i rs t ti me on a d ire ct ap pe al. Defend ant in the Brow

n ca se f i l ed a p eti ti on f or lea ve to a ppea l and ar gued , a mong other m atter s, that t he sen

tenci ng-credi t issue
co uld be rai sed f

or t he f irst tim e on ap pe al fr o m t he dis miss al o f his pos tcon vi cti on pet itio n and t hat t he is sue had n ot been fo r feit ed

. T his courtdeni

ed defe nda nt’s p etition f

or leave to appeal

and en tered a-6- supe rvisory ord er di re cti n g th e a pp el l ate cour t to al

l ow th e S tate
an oth er opp ortu n i ty to re sp on d to defen

dant’s request f

or additional sent encing cr edit ; t o d et er mine the merits of defendant’s sentencingcr edit re que st and t o g ra nt him further sen

tenci ng credi t, if requi red. The ord er also d i re cte d th at th e res ol uti o n o f t he se nt en cin g- cr ed it is sue b e i n cor porate d i n to the a ppel l ate court jud gme nt ad dr es sing all of the ot her iss

ues. Pe o p l e v

. B ro wn , 222 Il

l . 2d 579(2006 ) (tabl

e). The B ro wn cou

rt u pon re man d e x am i n ed th e Andre w

s ca se , in whi cht he court held tha

t it had the authority

under Suprem

e C our t Ru le 61 5( b) ( 1) ( 13 4 I ll. 2d R. 61 5( b) ( 1) ) t o mo di fy t he tr ial cou rt ’s order t o giv e t he de fen da nt cr ed it fo rall of hi s presentence c ustody al thoughhe rai sed the i ssue f or t he firs t t ime o n app ea l in his pos tcon vi cti on proceedin

g. The B ro wn co ur t , a fte r a ckno wledg ing that th e S tate

di d n ot dispute the meri ts of the sentenci

ng-credi t issue, ordered the mi

tt im us be corrected to refl

ect that defendan

t was en ti tl ed to 41 9 day

s of pr es en ten ce cred i t. A pp el l ate co ur t ca se s w hic h ho ld

th at a cla im fo rse nt en cin g c r ed it under se cti on 5 –8– 7(b) of the Unif ied Code in

volves a st at ut or y right and i s not c ognizabl

e i n a postconviction proceedi ng are People v. Bates , 17 9 I ll. App. 3d 705 (1989 ), People v. Uran , 196 Ill . App. 3d 293 (1990), and People v. Reed , 335 Ill . App. 3d 1038 (2003). Each of those cases ref

used to co nsi

der the sentenci

n g-cre di t is sue

. Reed also holds that a defen

dant who m

akes a s en t en cin g- cr ed it cl ai m f or t he firs t t ime on appeal

f rom the di sm i ss al of a p ostc onv

i cti on p eti ti on hasf orf ei ted th e ri gh t (Ree d , 335 Ill . App. 3d at 1040) and Bates h ol dsth at h

e h as wai v ed h i s r i gh t (Bates , 179 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 709). We hol d tha t a clai m f or per diem monet ar y cred it co nferr ed by
se cti on 110–14 of

the Code of

Cri m i nal Pr oc edure o f 1963 is

a statutory ri g h t (People v. Woodard , 17 5 Il l . 2d at 4 57)an

d i s n ot cognizab le under the Post-Convic tion Heari

ng Act. See People v. Pendleton , 223 Ill . 2d at 471. Each of the app el

l ate court cases wh ic h
we have di scussed

ab o ve als o ho lds t ha t a c laim fo rse nt en cin g c r ed it under se cti on 5 –8– 7(b) i nv ol ve s a sta tutory righ t an d i s n ot co gn iza ble in a postco nvi

ction proceedi

ng. The de fen da nt in t his case is not, however, att em

pting to raise

a new constitutional

i ss uei n h i s p ostc onv

i cti on pr o ce ed ing bu t is s imply app lyi ng f or a dif f eren t an d pur el y sta tutor y mon eta ry cred it under
se cti on 110–14. See A n d

re ws , 365 Ill . App. 3d

at 699 . I n Woodard we-7- noted that “[s]ection 110–14 i s s i l en t con cerni ng an y ti me f ram e or proceduralstage durin

g whi ch such applic ation ei

ther must or can be
ma d e” ( Woodard , 17 5 I l l . 2d at 4 44 ) a n d q uote d w i th approv al th e st at ement fr o m People v. Scott , 27 7 I ll . App . 3d 565 (1996), t hat

“‘ [g]ran ti

n g th e cre di t i s a si m pl e m i n i ste rial act th at wi l l

prom ote judi ci al eco nomy by ending any fur t her pr oc eed ings o ver t he
matter.’ ” Woodard , 175 Ill . 2d at 456-57, quot in g Scott , 27 7 I ll. App. 3d at 566. The Wren case an d the A n d re ws ca se ea ch gr an t ed a c laim f orsentenci

ng credit r aised for t he first t ime on ap pea l in a pos tcon vi cti on proc ee di ng base d on the rati ona l e of a “m in is terial act”
and the “i ntere sts of

an orderl y adm i nistration of

j ustice.” While we ho ld t hat a c l ai m f or m one tary cre di t un der s ec ti on 110–14 is a statu

tory cl ai m an d th eref oren ot co gn

iza b l e a s a se pa ra te is sue up on

wh i ch to b as e rel

i ef un der the P ost -C on

v i cti on He ari ng A ct, we al so hold that thi s statut ory clai m m ay be consi de red as an “appl ic at io n of t he de fendant ” made unde r t he st at ut e and may be rais ed at any tim e and at any

stage o f court proce edi

ng s, e ve n on appeal in a p ostc onv

i cti on proceedin

g. Accordin

gly , if , as in this case, t he ba sis fo rgr an t ing t he ap plic at io n o f t he de fen da nt is c le ar and
av aila ble fr o m t he r ec o r d, t he ap pe llat e c o ur t may, i n th e “i n terests of an orderly adm in is trat ion of jus tice,” grant the rel

ie f requested. The Stat e also ar gue s t hat defend ant is no t en t it led t o an y cr ed it under se ct io n 11 0– 14 fo r t he 1 16 da ys o f h is inc arceration be tween t he da y of h

is convi ction and the day of hi

s sentencin

g but has n o t ci ted an y cas es s upporti ng th i s arg ument . The St ate co ntends, howe ver: (1 ) t hat sec t ion 1 10– 14 s t at es t hat “[a] ny pers on in carceratedo n a ba ilable o ffen se ” s ha ll be allo wed the $5-per-day
cr ed it and section 110–4( a) of the Code of Cri m i na l Proc ed ure of 1963 de fine s ba ilable offense s as “[ a] ll perso ns shall be ba i l ab l e b ef ore co nvictio n” (725 ILCS 5 /1 10– 4(a) (West 2002)) and, therefore, ba ilable offense s do not include o ffenses o f which adefen da nt has b een co nvi cted b

ut not y et sen tenc ed; (2) tha

t once th e tri al court revoked defend ant ’s bo nd up on his c onvict ion, his offense was no longe ra “ b ai l ab l e of f ense ”; (3 ) that def

en da n t wa s n ot a pers on “who does n ot sup pl

y b ai l ”; an d ( 4) th at s ecti on

11 0– 14wa s e

n acted to off sett he ine qu it ies su ffer ed by in di ge n t d efen dants unable

to pay bond pr emiu ms a nd de fen da nt did sup ply bond in this ca se. We do n ot agree with any

of these arguments.-8- Sec ti on 11 0– 14 o r igin ally

prov i de d: “ A ny pers on i nc arc era ted on a ba ilable off

ense wh o does not sup ply bail and aga inst w hom a fine is lev ied on convi

ction of such off

enseshal l b e allowed

a credit of $5 for each day so inca rcerated p rior to conviction exce pt t hat in no
case sha ll the am ount so allowed or cr edi

ted exce ed t he amo unt of t he fi ne.” (Emph

asi s added.) Ill . Rev. Stat. 1965, ch. 38, par. 110–14. Effect iveOctober 1, 197 7, t he l eg i sl atu ream en de d th i s s ecti on to de l ete t he word s “

pri or to con vi cti on” an d a dde d “ upon appl i ca ti on of def endan t.” Th e f i rs t sente nc e of se cti on 110–14 then provided: “Any pe rs on i nc arc era ted on a bailable o ffense who do es no t sup ply bail and agains t wh o m a fin e is lev ied o n c o nvic t io n o f su ch o ffen se sha ll b e allowed a cred

it of $5 f or each day so incarcerated upon appl i ca ti on of t he defend ant .” (E mphasis ad ded .) Ill. Re v. S t at . 1 977 , c h. 38, pa r. 110–14. Section 110–14 has been am ended sev eral ti me s si nce 1977, butthe fi rst sentence

of the section hasnot been a mended since t hen. See 7 25 IL CS 5/1 10–14

(We st 2006 ). In addi ti on to t he le gis la tive a me ndm ent, there are als o several report ed ca ses that have deal

t with the i ssue rai sed by the Stat e. People v. Bennett, 24 6 Il

l . A pp. 3d 5 50 ( 199 3), i

nv ol ve d s ec ti on 110–14 an d t he St at e’ s a r gu men t t ha t t he de fen da nt is n ot en ti tl ed to
a monet ar y cred it fo r t he da ys he sp en t in cus t od y after being fo und gui l ty but pr ior t o be ingse nt en ce d. T he co ur t r eje ct ed t his ar gument and sta ted : “Here, the

sta tute provi de s f

ort he aw ard of

f i n e cre di t to
a defen dant who i s i

ncarcerat ed

ona ‘ b ai l ab l e’ of f ense . Th e statu te does not make a dist inctio n bet wee n de fen da nt s w ho ar e fin an cia lly
un ab le to po st bond and those who ar e denied the oppor tunity to po st bond by the tri al

cou rt. Th e s tatute also doesnot

prohi bi t the award of cred it fo r the p eriod of i nc arce rati on af ter a gui l ty f i ndi ng.” Bennett, 246 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 551-52. Other a

ppel l ate court cas es ha ve co nsis t en t ly

held t hat a de fend ant is en ti tl ed to cre di t un der s ec ti on 110–14 f ort i me sp en t in cus tody a

f ter conv i cti on b ut be f ore se n te nci ng. See People v. Raya , 250 Ill . App. 3d 795, 803 (1993) (d efenda nt was ent itl ed to $5-per-day credi t for 16 days pretri al i nc arc era ti on as well as t he 35 days’ inca rc er at ion bet wee n t he en d of his tr ial and sente ncing); People v. Smith , 258 Ill . App. 3d 261, 270 (1994) (d efenda nt was ent itled t o t he se cti on 11 0– 14cred

i t ag ai n st a fine for all the da ys he was incar cer at ed up unt il the sent ence) ; People
v. McNair, 325 Ill. A

pp. 3d 725, 726-27 (2001) ( defen dant was-9- entitled to cre di t towa rd h i s f i ne f or54 da ys of prese

nten ce custody

). T his co nsis t en t jud icia l in te r pr et at io n o f se ct io n 1 10 –1 4 is considered

a p ar t of th e statu te until the le gis la

ture amends

i t contrary to that interpretation. See Woodard , 175 Ill . 2d at 444, citing Miller
v. L ocket t , 98 Ill . 2d 478 (1983). T he l egi slature recently

am ended
se cti on 110 –14 by adding su bse ct io n ( b) , wh ich sp ec ifica lly preclude s a person i ncarcerated

f or sex ual ass aul t as de f i ne d i n s ection 5–9

–1.7 of the Unifi

ed Code o f C orr ections (730 ILCS 5/5–9–1. 7 (West 2006) ) f rom r ec eiv ing an y mo ne t ar y cr ed it under section 110–14. See Pu b. Act 93–699, eff

. January 1, 2005. This a

me ndm ent dem onstrates that the le gis la

ture can precl

ude the ben

efi t o f s ection 110–14 wh

en it desi re s. Its acquiescence i

n the judi cial constr uction of the first
sente nc e of section 110–14 o ver the past 14 y ea rs di ss ua de s u s f rom ove rr ulingthe appella

te co u rt dec isions t hat have int er pr et ed t he section as grantin g a presentence

cr ed it fo rda ys of

i nc arc era ti on f or a bai la ble off ense. We h old that defen

dant is entitled to the cre di t of $5 p er d ay f or t he two d ay s th at h e s pen t i n cu sto dy pri or to po st ing bond and t he 116 day s he spen

t i n cu sto dy f oll owi n g h i s c on v i cti on an d p rior to sentenci ng.

CONCLUSION For th e rea son

s s et f orth ab ov e, th e j udg men

t of th e a pp el l ate court is aff irm ed.
Appellate court judgment affirmed.
CHIEF JUSTICE THOMAS, di ssen ting: T he majo rit y’s d ec isio n pe rmit t ing a po st co nvict io n cla im fo r monetary credit under s ection 110–14 contradic ts the plai n l anguage of the P ost -Co nviction He aring Act, t his court ’s dec isions c ons t ru ing that Act, and t hi s court ’s d ec i si ons de f i ni ng the sc opeof postcon v i cti on appe als. A cc ordi

n gl y , I a m com pe l l ed to diss en t. The majo r it y’s ana lysis ru ns as fo llows. Sec t ion 1 10– 14 o f the Code of Cri m i na l Proc ed ure of 1963 creat es a

statut ory right to a per diem mo ne t ar y cr ed it “upon appl i cation of the def endan t.” Howev

er,-10- “‘[s ]e ct ion 1 10– 14 is s ilent co ncer ningan y t ime fram e or pro cedural stage du r ing wh ich su ch ap plic at io n eithe r must o r can be made.’ ” Slip op. at 7, quo ting People v. Woodard , 175 Il l . 2d 435 , 444 (1 997). Co ns eq ue nt ly, a se ct ion 1 10– 14 c laim “ may be raise d at any time and at any stage of cou rt proce edi

ng s, e ve n on appe al i n a pos tcon vi cti on proceedin g.” Sli p op. at 7. The p rob l em

wi th t his a na lysis is that, whil

e section 110–14 m

ay be si l en t as to whe

ther m one t ar y cred it claims may be ra ised fo r t he fi rst ti me i n a pos tcon vi cti on proc ee di ng , th e Pos

t-Con vi cti on Hea ring Act i s n ot, a n d n ei th er i s th i s c our t’s j uri spru den ce

con str ui n g th e A ct. Indeed, both the Act

and the settled case l

aw provide n

ume rous bases f orbar ring t he ad

ju di ca t io n o f d ef

en da nt ’s “p ur ely s t at ut o ry” (sli p op. at 6 ) c l ai m i n th i s c on tex t. Fir st, defendan

t’s clai m f alls well out side the narrow class o f cla ims au th ori ze d b y th e P ost -C on

v i cti on He ari n g A ct. Un der the A ct, t he only types of clai

ms that may

be asserted in a post co nvic t io n pr oc eed ingar e t hos e as ser t ing “a substantial

deni al of *** rights under t he Consti

tution of the Un

i ted States or of

the State of Il l i noi s.”725 ILCS 5/122–1 (a)(1) (We st 2006 ). Def endan t’s c l ai m f or mon etary cred it under section 110–14 has n o constitutional

componen

t whatsoever. Sec ond, defen

dant’s cl ai m f alls out side the class of cl

ai ms over whi ch postcon v i cti on court s possess the j urisdi ction to adjudicate. T his courthas exp l ai

ne d that “ [s ]ecti on

122 –1 of the Pos t-Con vi cti on Hea ring A ct is jurisdictional in nature and limits thesubject matter revie w able under thatAct.” (Em phases adde d.) People

v. Ferree , 40 I ll. 2d 483, 48 4 ( 19 68 )

. Ac co r di ng ly, “ j urisd i cti on i n p ost-c onv

i cti on pr oceedin gs is li mited t o s itu at ions in which ‘a subs t ant ial deni al o f ri gh ts un de rt he Co nst it uti onof the Un i ted State s or of the State of Ill in ois’ is alle ged.” People

v . Owe ns , 34 Il l . 2d 149 , 150 (1 966), quo t ing Ill . Rev. Stat. 1963, ch. 38, par. 122 –1 ; s eealso People v. Ward, 48 Il

l . 2d 11 7, 1 20 (1 97 1) . Sta

ted dif f ere ntl y , postcon

vi cti on cou rtsl ack th e j uri sd i cti on to ad j udi ca te purel y statutory cl ai ms . See, e.g. , Ow ens , 34 I ll. 2d a

t 150 -51 (tri

al cou rt lac ke d j urisd

i cti on over pos tcon vi cti on cla im that “deri

ved wh oll y f rom *** statut e”). Here, t he ma jori ty ackn owledges that a cl

ai m f or monetary credi

t un d er se cti on 110–1 4 is “p ur ely s t at ut o ry.” Slip o p. at 6. Ne ve r t he les s, it goe s on to hol d that, i n th e “i nte res ts of an orde rl y ad m i ni stra ti on of-11- jus tice,” such

cl ai ms ma y be rai se d a nd ad j udi ca ted f ort he firs t t ime in a postco nvi

ction proceedi

ng. Slip op. at 7. The

maj ority nowh ere reconci le s this

holdi ng wi th the a forem

entione d cases, an

d nei ther does it exp lain how t he “intere sts of an orde rl y ad m i ni stra ti on of jus tice” wil l b e se rve d byt he ad

judicat ion o f legal claims in the abse nce o f subject matt er jurisd ictio n. Thi rd, de fen da nt ’s cla im

fa lls s qu ar ely within a c l as s of cases that t his cou rt h asex pre ss l y i denti f i ed asi na ppr opri atef or postcon

vi cti on co nsider at ion. In People

v. Mitchell, 189 I ll. 2 d 3 12 , 32 9 ( 20 00 ) , t his courtheld that “[s]tat utes do not co nf er const itutional ri

ghts, and t he al l eg ati on of a dep rivat ion o f a s t at ut o ry rig ht is no t a p r o pe rcla im under the Act.” See also Ow

ens , 34 I ll. 2d a t 150 -5 1. Her e, defend ant is a ss er t ing a c laim fo rmo ne t ar y cr ed it under section 110–14, which the ma jori ty concedes

is a “purel y s tatut ory” cl

ai m. Sl ip op. at 6. Fo ur t h, ev en

i f def endan t’s c l ai m were of t he t ype pe rmitt ed by t he Ac t and o ve rwh ich po st co nvic t io n c o ur t s p o ss es se d ju r isd ict io n, it nevertheless

wo uld be bar re d by

the f orfe i ture doctri

ne . As thi s court hasfrequen

tly expl ai ned, “[ a] pe t it io n fo rpo st

- co nvic t io n r elie f is not
an ap pe al of

th e underl

yi ng j udgme

nt; rather, it i s a coll

ateral procee di ng.” People v. Johnson , 20 6 I ll. 2d 3 48, 356 (2 002 ). As suc h,
a pos tcon vi cti on proceedin

g allows i nqui ry onl y i nto issues “that were n ot, and could

not have be en , adj udicated on di rect ap peal .” ( E mph as is adde d.) Johnson , 20 6 I ll. 2 d a t 35 6. He r e, de fen da nt is
asse rt inga st at ut or y right explicitly set for t h in the pretri al porti on of t he Co de o f

Cr i m i n al Pro ce du re , a n d al l of th e f acts n ec es sa ry to ass ertth at r

i gh t wereav ai l ab l e to hi m on di rect ap pe al. Co ns eq ue nt ly,
even if a se ct io n 1 10 –1 4 c laim could be as ser t ed a nd ad

judicat ed in a pos tcon vi cti on pr oc eed ing, d efenda nt wo uld have forfe ited an y s uch cl ai m i n thi s case. Fifth, de f en da nt’ s a ss erti

on of t his cl ai m f or th e f i rs t ti me on appeal fr o m t h e d ismis sa l o f his p o st co nvic t io n p et it io n is e xp r es sly barred by thi s court ’s de ci si onin People v. Jones , 211 Ill . 2d 140 (2004 ). In that case, we hel d that “a [postco nvi

ction] def endan t may not ra ise an issu e fo r t he first t ime while the matter i s on re view” a nd that “ any issues to be reviewed mustbe pr es en t ed in the petition f

il ed in the c i rcui t court.” (Em

phasi s ad ded.) Jones , 21 1 I ll. 2d at 14 8. T his hold ing is cat ego rical and co nt ains no exceptions. Here, defendant’s cla im f or m one tary cre di t un der s ec ti on

110–14 was not presented in t he pe ti ti on fi le d in t he cir cu it co ur t

. Co nse qu en t ly, d efe nd an t co uld not rais e i t for the fi

rst t im e on appeal

f rom th e di sm is sal of that-12- pet itio n. In sum , then, to per mi

t t he adj udic ati o n o f de fen da nt ’s “p ur ely st at ut o ry” claim in this case , t he major ity dispe nses no t only wit h t he pla in l an gua geof the Pos t-Con

vi cti on Hea ring Act , bu t also wit h a good por tion o f this court ’s cas e law c ons t ru ing t he Act . We re t his the
o nly mea ns of affor ding a r emedy t o p er so ns in defend ant ’s po sitio n, I mi ght understand the m

aj ority’ s will

in gn es s to g o t o such lengths. But this is hardl y the case. On the contrary , defen dan ts who are entitled to a cl ai m f or mon etary credi t unde r se cti on110–14 have a host of opport uni

ties to obtain that

cr edit , e ven at t he pos tcon vi cti on stage . Ob vi ous l y , a def en da nt m ay appl y f ort he cr ed it at the ti

me of t r ial. Mo r eo ve r , a d efe nd an t may a pp ly f or th e c red

i t f ort he firs t t ime
on direct appeal . See Woodard , 17 5 I ll. 2 d a t 45 7- 58

. And if the direct appeal comes an

d goes without appli

cation h av in g b een m

ade, de f en da n ts st ill have a postcon

vi cti on rem edy , provide d it isproper

ly pled

. A s d

i sc us se d a b ov e, n othi

n g i n ei th er th e A ct or th iscour t’s pos tcon vi cti on jur isp rud en ce pe rmit s t he ad jud ica t io n o f a p ur ely statutory cl ai m i n th e c ours e of

a p os tcon

viction proceedi

ng. H owe ver, nothin

g preclude s a def

endan t from f ashi onin g an ineffect iveassi stanceclai

m und er Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 686, 80

L. Ed. 2 d 674, 6 92, 104

S. Ct. 2052 , 2063- 64 (19 84), based upon counsel ’s f

ai lure to apply

for the credi

t. And unl

ike a direct asse rt ion o f the st at ut or y right , ineffect iveassi stance of couns el is a te xtb ook pos

tcon vi cti on c l ai m . W ha t’s m ore, a p ostc onv

i cti on Strickland

cla im in this context is v

irtually guaranteed to succeed. “The sta tutor y ri gh t to a per diem cr edit fou nd in section 110–14 *** is i n t he na t ur e o f aman da t o ry r ig ht su bje ct t o as se r t io n by a defen dant.” Woodard , 175 Ill . 2d at 45 3. I n o t he rwo r ds , fo relig ible defendan ts, t he mone t ar y cred it is ava ilable for t he as king, t her e is no
co nc eiv ab le strategi

c b asis f or not reque st ing it, and t he r esu lting prejudi ce is a mat t er o f simp le a r it hme t ic. De fen da nt s w ill o bt ain t he ir
re lief, and t he inte gr ity o f the Po st -Co nv ic t io n H ea r ing Ac t is preserved. For these reaso ns, I r espect full y di ssent fro m the maj or ity’s dec ision.

JU STI CE S F RE EMA

N a n d B UR K E j oi n i n th i s d i ss en t.