FIRST JUDICI AL DISTRICT THIRD DIVISION March 23, 2011

No. 1-08- 2420 THE PEOPLE OFTHE STATE OFILLINO IS, ) APPEAL FROM THE ) CIRCUIT COURT OF Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, ) COOK COUNTY ) v. ) No. 07 CR 21175 ) JAMES HI LL, ) HONORABLE ) JOSEP H G. K

AZMIERS KI, J

R., De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) JUDGE PRESIDING. JUS TI CE ST EE LE d elivered t he judg ment o f the co ur t , w ith o pinion. Pr esiding J ust ice Qu inn and Ju st ice Mu rp hy conc ur re d in t he judg ment a nd o pinion. O P I N I ON Fo llowing a ju ry t rial in the circu it co ur t of Co ok Co unt y, de fendant James H ill was fou nd guil ty of posses sion of a controlled substance wi th in tent t o deli

ver and de li

very of a controlled substanc e. Based on Hi

ll 's cri mi nal hi story, the trial

court sentence d Hil

l as a Cl ass X off ender ( 73 0 I LC S 5 /5
- 5- 3( c) ( 8) ( We st 20 06 ) ) t o t wo co nc ur r en t 12
- yea rt er ms in p r iso n. On ap pe al, Hill argu ed : (1 ) h

i s c on v i cti on sh oul d b e rev er se d, bec au se

th e c i rcui t cou rt f ai l ed to co m pl y wi th Illinois Su pr eme Co ur t Rule 4 31( b) ( eff. Ma y 1, 2 007 ); ( 2) t he circ uit co ur t denied Hill's know ing right t o t est ify

by refusing t o r ule o n his mot ion in limine to ba r the i ntr oduc ti on of hi s prior co nvictio ns for impeachment pur po ses; ( 3) his sent ence s ar e exc essive; ( 4) t he mitt imus sho uld be cor re cte d to ref

l ect two e xtra da y s of cred i t; an d ( 5) th e m

i tti m ussh oul d b e c orre cte d to ref

l ect1-08-2420

-2-

one con vi cti on f or pos se ss i on of

a c ontr ol l ed su bs tan cewi th i nte nt to d el i ve r an d one c onv

i cti on f or del i very of a control l ed subs tanc e, rather tha

n two con vi cti ons f or the of f en se of man uf acture or del i very of a control l ed subs tanc e. On Jun e 30, 2 010, th

i s court af f i rmed Hi l l 's conv i cti on an d m odi f i ed the m i ttim us. People v. Hill , 40 2 I ll. A pp . 3d 92 0, 93 2 N . E . 2d 17 3 ( 20 10 ) . On Ja nu ar y 26 , 20 11 , t he I llino is S up r eme Cou rt d en i ed Hi ll l ea v e to a pp ea l , but en tered a s up er v i sor y order di re cti n g th i s c our t to v ac ate

i ts jud gme nt and re co nsid er t he a pp ea l in light o f People v. Thompson , 238 Ill . 2d 598, 939 N.E. 2d 403 (2 010 ). Acco rd ingly, we va cat e o ur pr ior judg ment a nd r eco nsider Hill's appe al. Fo r t he foll owing reasons, we again af fi rm Hi ll 's convi ction and modif

y the m ittim us. BACK GROUND The record on appeal di

scloses the fol

lowi ng f acts. During jury s el ection, the trial judge ask ed t he first and s eco nd pa nels o f pro spe ct ive juro rs w het her t hey had a pr oblem wit h t he pr inciples o f law t hat t he de fendant is pre sumed innoce nt , t hat t he pr esu mpt ion r emains unt il the State prov esthe de f en da nt g ui l ty be yond a re as ona bl e doubt, an

d that the def

en da nt i s n ot r eq uir ed t o pr es en t an y evid en ce o n his be ha lf. De fen se co un se l as ke d t he firs t pa ne l wh et he rit wo uld affe ct t he ir v er dic t if Hill c ho se no t t o t es t ify. D efe nse co un se l as ke d t he se co ndpa ne l if Hil l ch ose not to test if

y, "would that fact prevent you fro m gi vi ng hi m a f air and i mpartial trial? " The trial judge asked a prospectiv

e j uror o n the second pa

nel about foll

owing the in struction that a def en da n t' s dec i si on n ot to te sti

f y sh oul d n ot b e c on si

dere d i n re ach i n g a v erdi ct. The t rial judg e as ked t he t hird p anel o f pro spe ct ive juro rs w het her t hey unde rst oo d t he defend ant is pre sumed innoce nt , t hat t he pr esu mpt ion r emains unt il the S t at e pr ove s t he de fendant1-08-2420

-3-

gui l ty b ey ond a reas onabl e doubt, and

that the def endan t is not requ i red to pres en

t any evi den ce. The trial judge al so asked whether they

could f oll ow the law as h

e i ssued i t, even if they pers ona l l y di sa gre ed wi th i t. The p ros ecutor a sked

j uror s i n th i s p an el wheth er th ey coul d f ol l ow the judge 's i

nstruction that, if

Hil l di d not t estif

y, they could n ot consider that fact in

reachi ng a v erdi ct. The trial

judge asked the f

ourt h an d fi fth pan el s of prospectiv

e j urors whether they h

ad an y probl em wi th the pri nc i ples of l aw that appl

i ed to thi s ca se that he

men tion ed ea rli er. Prior to the in

tro duction of ev

ide nce, def ense couns el

move d in limine to ba

r Hi l l 's pri or conv i cti ons f rom bei ng i ntroduc ed as

i m peac hm en t evi den ce i f Hil l testi f i ed. Th e tri al court ba rre d us e of

f our c onv i cti ons , f i nd i ng the m un dul y pre j udi ci al . The tri

al cou rt de f erred rul i ng on the use of f

our o ther convictions, statin g that t he conv

ictions were wi

thin the past 10 years , but t ha t t he rul ing s w o ul d d ep en d o n t he na t ur e o f H ill's t es t imo ny, if a ny. At trial , Chicago poli ce off ic er Saud Haida

ri testif ie d that on Sept em

ber 22, 2007, he was work i ng asa surv ei l l an ceof f i cer f or an un dercov er n arc oti cstea

m as si gned to the corn er of Fr an cis co Ave nu e a ndFlo ur no y St r ee t . Fr o m a d ist an ce , Offic er Ha ida r i o bse rve d H ill eng ag e in sev eral ha nd- to-han d tran sactions wh

ere H i l l tendered a

n un know n i tem i n excha nge f or cash . Officer H aidar i rad ioed his obs er vat ions t o his t eam, aft er which he o bser ved H ill enga ge in a t ra nsac t ion wit h Chicag o p olice d et ect ive Rho nda And er so n. Detective A

nderson testif

ie d that after she recei

ved a desc

ription of Hill

from Off ic er Hai dari, sh

e drove up to Hill

in an un ma rked car and told hi

m s he n eeded "two blows," wh

ic h was a street t erm f

or heroin. Hi

ll gave A nderson two pin

k-tinted Zi

ploc b ags contain

in g a whi te,1-08-2420

-4-

powdere d sub stan

ce, i n excha nge f or a $20 bi l l , whi ch

had a pre recorde d seri al

num ber. Ander so n t hen r adio ed he r t eam t hat she ha d eng age d in a po sitive na rc ot ics t ra nsac t ion. Chi cago poli ce off

ic er Konior t estif

ie d that he and two ot her enf orcemen t o ff ic ers recei ved confi rmation of Detective

An derson's b uy a nd, bas ed on An

derson's des cription, apprehended Hill. Det ect ive Ander so n dr ove by and co nfirmed t hat Hill was t he man involved in the transaction. Of

fi cer Koni or t estif ie d that t he off

ic ers conducted a custodial search of Hil l, wh ic h resul ted in the dis covery of

fi ve pi nk-tin ted Zipl oc bags contain

in g suspected heroi

n an d $97, including t he $2 0 bill used in De t ect ive Ander so n's t ra nsac t ion. Ill in ois State Polic e forens ic

scientis t Thomas Hal

loran testi fi

ed that the two pin

k-tinted Zi ploc b ags An

derson bought from

Hil l c ontaine d 0.5 grams of

heroin . Hall

oran als o t estif

ie d that t he five pink- t inted Ziploc bags disco ver ed in t he cu st od ial sear ch co nt ained 1 .5 gr ams o f hero in. Hill cho se no t t o t es t ify on h is be half. The jury fou nd Hill guilty o f po sses sion w ith int ent t o d eliver 1 t o 1 4 gr ams o f hero in and del i very of h eroi n. H i l l f i l ed a m otion f or new tria l , whi ch the tri al court den

i ed on Jul y 21, 200 8. Af ter hearing evidence in

aggravation and mi

tigation, t he trial court sentenced Hill as a Class

X off ender (730 ILCS 5/5-5-3(c)(8) (West 2006)) t o t wo concurrent 12-year terms i n pri son. On August 21, 2008, the trial court deni

ed Hill 's m ot ion to reconsi der hi s sen tence. Hil

l f il ed a notice of appeal to t hi s court the same day . On August 22, 2008, t he trial court denied Hil l' s pro se motion to reduce hi s sen

tence. Hil

l f il ed a second n

ot ic e of appeal

on Septembe

r 4, 2008. On Nov em b er 12 , 20 09 , the I l li

n oi s S up re me C our

t en tered a s up er v i sor y order di re cti n g th i s c our t to allow the n

ot ic e of appeal

to stand as validl

y f il ed.1-08-2420

-5- DISCUSSION I On ap pe al, Hill fir st ar gu es t ha t t he cir cu it co ur t vio lat ed I llino is S up r eme Co ur t Ru le 431 (b) (e ff. May 1, 200 7) for faili ng t o e st ablish tha t eac h pr os pec t ive juro r u nder st oo d and agr eed wit h t he fo ur pr inciples enu nciat ed by o ur sup re me co ur t in People v. Zehr , 103 Ill . 2d 47 2, 4 69 N. E.2 d 1 06 2 ( 19 84 ). Th e S tate cor re ctl y n otes th at H i l l f orf ei ted thi s iss ue b y f ai li n g to make a contem poraneous ob

j ection at trial

and raisi ng i t in his posttrial

motion . E.g. , People v. Banks , 16 1 I l l . 2d

11 9, 1 43 , 64 1 N .E. 2d

33 1, 3 42 (1 99 4) . N ev

er th el es s, "[p] l ai

n er rors or def ects affect ing subs t ant ial right s may be no t iced a ltho ugh t hey wer e no t bro ught t o t he at t ent ion o f the t rial co ur t ." Ill. S . C t . R . 6 15( a) (e ff. Aug . 2 7, 199 9) . T he plain er ro r d oc t rine o per at es w hen: "(1 ) a clear or obvio us e rr or oc cur re d and t he evide nce is so clos ely balanced t hat t he er ro r a lone t hre at ened t o t ip t he sc ales o f just ice ag ainst t he de fendant , r ega rd less o f the seriousness of the error , or (2) a clear or obvious error occur red and that erro r is so ser iou s t hat it affec t ed t he fairne ss o f defend ant 's t rial and challenge d t he inte gr ity o f the judi cial pro cess, regard less of

the closeness of the evi

dence." People v. Piatkow ski , 225 Ill . 2d 551 , 565, 87 0 N.E.2d 403, 41 1 (200 7). Unde r bo t h pr ong s o f the plain er ro r d oc t rine, " 't he bur den o f per sua sion r emains wit h t he defendan t. ' " Piatkow

ski , 225 Ill . 2d at 565, 870 N. E.2d at 411 ( quot in g People v. Herron , 215 Ill . 2d 167 , 187, 83 0 N.E.2d 467, 48 0 (200 5)). The f i rst step i s to determ

i ne whethe r an y error was

com m i tted. People v. Hudson , 228 Ill. 2d 181 , 1 91, 886 N. E. 2d 9 64, 971 (2 008 ). Illinois Su pr eme Co ur t Rule 4 31( b) c od ifi es t he1-08-2420

-6-

Illinois Su pr eme Co ur t 's ho lding in People v. Zehr that four in

quiri es m ust be m ade of potential jur o r s in a cr iminal c as e t ha t " ' go [ ] t o t he he ar t o f a p ar t icu lar bia s o rpr eju dic e w hic h w o uld deprive [a] defendan

t o f h is ri ght t o a fair and i

mpartial jury .' " People v. Zehr , 103 Ill . 2d 472, 477, 469 N.E.2d 1062, 1064 (1984) (quot in g People v. Zehr , 110 Ill . App. 3d 458, 461, 442 N. E . 2d 58 1, 58 4 ( 19 82 ) ) . T he ve r sio n o f Ru le 4 31 ( b) t ha t wa s in e ffec t wh en Hill's t r ial be ga n in May 2008 provi

des: "Th e c ourt sha

l l ask e ach p oten

ti al j uror , i nd i vi dua l l y or i n a grou p, w he the r that j uror understands an

d accepts the fol

lowi ng pri nci ple s: (1) that t he def

endan t is presum

ed in nocent of the ch

arge(s) agai

nst hi m or her; (2) that before a defe ndan t can be conv

icted, t he St at e must pr ove t he de fendant guilt y beyond a re aso nable do ubt ; (3 ) t hat t he defend ant is not re quir ed t o o ffer any evide nce o n his or her ow n behalf; and ( 4) t hat t he de fend ant 's fa ilur e t o t es t ify cann o t be h eld ag ains t him o r h er ; ho we ver , n o inqu iry o f a pr os pec t ive juro r sha ll be made into t he de fendant 's failure t o t est ify when t he de fendant obj ects. The co ur t 's met hod of inqu iry shall pro vide ea ch jur or an o ppo rt unit y to re spo nd t o s pec ifi c qu est ions c onc er ning t he pr inciples set ou t in this se ct ion. " Ill. S . C t . R . 4 31( b) (ef f . May 1, 2007 ). We ex am in e the record t o determin

e whether the cl

ear ma ndates of the rul

e were fol lowed. Compl ia nce wi th a suprem

e court r ule

is reviewed de novo . E.g. , People v. Lloyd, 338 Ill . App. 3d 379 , 384, 78 8 N.E.2d

1169, 1 173 (2 003).1-08-2420

-7-

In Thompson , t he I llino is S up r eme Co ur t rule d t ha t Ru le 4 31 ( b) man da t es a s pe cific question and response pro cess: "Th e tr i al cou rt m ust ask e ach

pote n ti al j uror w h eth er h e or sh e u n ders tan dsan d acc ep ts each of the pri nc i plesi n th e ru l e. The que sti oni ng may be perf orm ed ei the r i nd i vi dua l l y or i n a grou p, b ut the ru l e re qui res an oppor tun i ty f or a res pon se f rom each pros pe cti ve j uror on his or her under standing an

d accepta nce of those princi ples." Thompson , 238 Ill . 2d at 607, 939 N.E.2d at 410. Accordin gly , the Thompson court f

ound e rror whe re the tria l j udge f ail ed to addre ss th

e thi rd Zehr pr inciple and failed t o a sk jur or s whe t her t hey not only und er st oo d, but also acc ept ed, t he presum pti on of i nn ocence. Id. In thi s case, the trial

judge in itially me ntioned three of

the Zehr pr inciples, lea ving t he fourth as a subject for quest ioni ng by defense counsel . Ho wever, t he f our th and fi

fth panels – fro m which six juro rs w er e se lect ed – wer e o nly asked a ge ner al que st ion abo ut t he pr inciples t he t rial judg e ment ioned ear lier, w ith voir dire on a v ariety of s ubj ects i n the i nterv en i ng ti me peri od. Foll owing Thompson , we concl ude that the tr ia

l judge's m

ethod of in

quiry here f aile d to provide ea ch jur o ran o pp o rt un it y t o r es po ndt o sp ec ific q ue st io ns c o nc er ning t he pr inc iple s s et fo rt h in Rul e 431 (b). Ha ving co nc lud ed t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t er r ed , we ad dr es s t he iss ue o f wh et he rt he er r o rfalls in to ei ther of the two cat egories i dentif ie d in cases l ike Piatkow

ski . Hil l does n ot argue on appeal that t he ev

ide nce is so closel

y bal anced that the error alone threatened to tip the scal es of j ustice aga inst him. R at her , H ill

ar gue s t hat t he er ro r w as so ser iou s t hat it affec t ed t he inte gr ity o f the1-08-2420

-8-

jud icia l pr o ce ss an d r eq uir es au t o mat ic r ev er sa l. I n su ch ca se s " [ p] r eju dic e t o t he de fen da nt is presumed because of the im por tance of the right inv

olved." Herron , 215 Ill . 2d at 187, 830 N. E. 2d a t 480 . H ow ever , in Thompson , t he co ur t he ld a vio lat io n o f I llino is S up r eme Co ur t Ru le 431(b) i s n

ot a structural

error requ

i ri ng a utoma tic reversa l . Thompson , 238 Ill . 2d at 611, 939 N.E.2d at 412. The Thompson court f urthe r he l d tha t, abs en t evi den ce of a b i ase d j ury, a vi ola tion of R ule 431 (b) i

s n ot reversi bl e un der the se cond

prong of p l ai n error revi ew. Thompson , 238 Ill . 2d at 615, 939 N. E.2d at 414. In addi tion, the Thompson cou

rt d ec li n ed to i m pose a bri ght-l i ne rule of reversa l f or vi ola tions of Rul e 431 (b). Thompson , 238 Ill . 2d at 616, 939 N.E.2d at 415. In this case, as n

ot ed i n our origi

nal opini on, Hil l i dentif ie s no evi dence that t he t r ial c o ur t 's e rr o rr es ult ed in his be ing t r ied be fo r e a bia se d ju ry. A cc o r din gly, we ag ain co nc lud e t ha t Hill ha s fa iled t o sho w p lain e rr o rt ha t wo uld t r igg er anau t o mat ic r ev er sa l in t his case. II Hill ne xt ar gu es t ha t t he cir cu it co ur t de nie d h is k no win g r igh t t o t es t ify by r efu sing t o rule on his mo t ion in limine to bar the i ntroduction

of h i s pri or conv i cti ons f or im peac hm en t purpose s. Hill also ar gue s t hat t he de cision d enied his d ue p ro ces s right t o " t he gu iding hand o f co unse l" and his right t o a re medy unde r t he I lli nois C ons t itu t ion. Hill relies pr imarily on People v. Patrick

, 23 3 I l l . 2d

62 , 90 8 N .E. 2d

1 ( 20 09 ), i

n wh i ch our su pr em e c our t h el d th at " a tr i al cou rt' s f ai l ure to ru le on a mot ion in limine on t he ad missibi lity of pr ior co nvictio ns whe n it has sufficient in formation to make a rulin g constitut es an abuse of discretion." Patrick , 233 Ill . 2d at 73, 908 N.E.2d at 7. However, the Patrick co ur t also held t hat a de fendant fails to pr ese rve for app eal t he1-08-2420

-9-

issue o f the t rial co ur t 's re fusal t o r ule o n t he ad missibi lity of his pr ior co nvictio ns, w hen t he def endan t does n ot testif y at tria l . Patrick , 23 3 I ll. 2 d a t 77 , 90 8 N . E . 2d at 10 . I n t his c as e, Hill did no t t es t ify at t r ial, t he r eb y fo r feit ing t he iss ue o n app ea l. Hill ar gu es t hat t he fo rfe it ur e r ule o f Patrick should not apply

because the trial judge had a "blanke t po licy" of re fusing t o r ule o n suc h mot ions, which is nece ssar ily ar bitr ar y. Assu ming arguendo that the

tria l j udge had a b l an

ket pol i cy, we n ote that the

Illi noi s Suprem

e Court squ ar ely reject ed t he ar gument in People v. Averet t , 2 37 I ll. 2d 1 , 9 27 N .E .2 d 11 91 ( 201 0) . T he Averett cou rt rul ed tha t the trial cou rt' s a ppl i ca ti on of a b l an ke t pol i cy of de f err i ng rul i ng s on motions in limine did no t violat e t he de fendant s' co nst itu t ional r ight s t o t est ify or t o t he "g uiding ha nd of coun sel ." (In

terna l quotati on m

arks omi tted.) Averett

, 237 Ill . 2d at 16, 927 N. E.2d at 1200. The Averett

cou rt al so rej ec ted

the sta te c ons ti tutiona l cl ai m , noti ng tha t arti cl e I, se cti on 12, of the Ill

in ois Constitution (Ill . Const. 1970, art . I, §12) o nl y e xpresses a phi losophy and does not requ i re a c ertai n re medy i n a ny spe cif i c f orm. Averett

, 237 Ill . 2d at 21-23, 927 N.E.2d at 12 03 . H ill furt her ar gu es t hat t he fo rfe it ur e r ule o f Patrick is wrongly decided. Al

though we understand Hi

ll 's des ire to preserve the i ssue f or review, thi s court has no power t o reverse a deci sion of the Il li noi s Suprem

e Court. E.g. , O'Casek v. Children's Home & Aid Society of Illinois , 229 Il

l . 2d 421 , 440, 89 2 N.E.2d 994, 10 06 (20 08) (

stare decisi s re qui re s c our ts to fo llo w t he de cis io ns o f hig he rco ur t s) . Ac co r din gly, Hill's ar gu men t s o n t his is su e fa il.1-08-2420

-10- III Moreover, Hi

l l argue s tha

t hi s 12- year s en

tenc es a re ex ces si ve , clai m i ng th at the tri al court failed t o c ons ider re levant mitigat ing fact or s, includ ing t he no nviolent nat ur e o f the offense s and Hi l l ' s d ru g addi cti

on . It i s wel l estab li sh ed th at th e s en ten ce i m pos ed b y a tr i al cou rt i s e n ti tl ed to gr ea t de fer en ce , an d w he n t he se nt en ce is w it hin t he st at ut o ry limits , it may be dis t ur be d o nly where the tri al

court has ab

use d i ts di scre tion . E.g. , People v. Bosley , 233 Ill . App. 3d 132, 139, 598 N.E .2d

355 , 36 0 (1 992 ) (a

nd ca se s c i ted the rei n) . So l ong as the trial cou rt " ' doe s n

ot co nsider incompe t ent evidenc e, impro per agg ra vat ing fact or s, o r igno re per t inent mit igat ing factors, it has w

ide la titude in sentenci ng a def endan t t o any term wi thin the statut ory range prescribed f

or t he off ense.' " Bosley , 233 Ill . App. 3d at 139, 598 N.E .2d at 360 (quo ting People v. Hernandez , 2 04 I ll. App. 3d 7 32, 740 , 5 62 N .E .2 d 21 9, 225 (1 990 )) . T he t rial co ur t has no obl i gation to reci

te and as si

gn v al ue to each f

actor pres en

ted at a s en

tenc i ng h eari ng. People v. Baker , 24 1 I ll. A pp . 3d 49 5, 49 9, 60 8 N . E . 2d 12 51 , 12 53 ( 19 93 ) . Whe r e mit iga t ing ev ide nc e is pres en ted to the trial

court duri

ng th e se nten ci ng h eari ng, we m ay presum e tha t the trial court cons i dered

i t, abs en t some i ndi cation, other than

the s en tenc e i tsel f , to the con

trary . People v. Dominguez , 255 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 99 5, 1004 , 626 N .E.2d 775 , 783 (1 994). In this case, based on Hill 's crim in al h istory, the t rial

cour t sentenced Hill

as a Class

X o ffen de r( 73 0 I LC S 5 /5
- 5- 3( c) ( 8) ( We st 20 06 ) ) , wh ich ha s a se nt en cin g r an ge o f 6 t o 30 yea r s in pri son ( 730 IL CS 5/5 -8-1(a )(3) (W est 200 6)). Th

us, Hi l l 's sen tenc e f al l s wi thi n the statutory ra n ge . In de ed , a s H i l l

ackn owl ed ge s, ev en ab se n t th e C l as s X

sta tute , po ss es si

on wi th i n ten t to1-08-2420

-11-

deliv er 1 to 14 grams

of heroi n i s a Cl ass 1 off ense wi th a ma xi mum sentence of 15 y ears. See 720 IL CS 57 0/401 (c)(1) (W est 200 6); 7 30 IL CS 5/5 -8-1(a )(4) (W est 200 6). Hil l' s clai m that the court faile d to consider hi s drug addi ction i s i ncorrect. T he transcri

pt of proceedin

gs shows that the trial

court did c onsider the presentence i nve stigati on report , which detail ed Hill 's drug use. The trial

judge specifi cally me ntioned Hil

l' s partici pation i n a sub stance abuse treatm en t program whi l e i nc arce rated a s a m

i tig ati ng f actor. Hill's cla im t ha t t he co ur t faile d t o co nsid er t he no nvio len t na t ur e o f t he o ffen se s is un pers ua si ve . The tri

al j udg e h ea rd th e evi denc e addu

ce d a t tri al an d i s pres um ed to know vio len ce wa s no t invo lve d in t his c as e. T he t r ial ju dg e w as als o en t it led t o co nsid er t ha t , in addi ti on to th e of f ense s prereq

ui si te to C l as s X

sente nc i ng , Hi l l ha d 14 f el ony con vi cti ons , 13 of which we re dr ug- re late d – a fact or t hat cer t ainly bears o n Hill's pot ent ial for r ehabilitat ion. As t he r eviewing c ou rt , w e ar e no t t o r ewe igh t he fact or s co nsider ed in de t er mini ng t he de fen da nt 's s en t en ce no rar e w e t o su bst it ut e o ur jud gme nt fo rt ha t o f t he t r ial c o ur t simp ly be caus e we woul d ha

ve wei ghe d the f actors di f f eren tly. People v. Jones , 376 Ill . App. 3d 372, 39 4, 8 76 N. E.2 d 1 5, 3 4 ( 20 07 ). In thi s c as e, Hi

l l h as f ai l ed to s h ow th

e tr i al cou rt a b us ed i ts discretion i

n i mposin g hi s concurrent 12-year sentences. IV Mo re ove r, Hill argu es t hat t his co ur t sho uld co rr ect t he mitt imus to re flect 304 days sp ent i n custody as credi ted aga i nst hi s se nten ce, a s oppose d to the 302day s n oted by the tri al court. Hil l mai ntai ns that he sh

oul d recei ve credi t for the day

of h i s arre st an

d the day he wassen tenc ed. The S tate re sp ondsth at H i l l

sh oul d r ec ei v e cre di t f or th e f orm er , but n ot the l atte r. Pur suan

t to1-08-2420

-12-

Supreme C ourt Rul e 615 (eff . Aug. 27, 1999), a reviewi ng court may

correct the mi

tt im us wi thout rem andi ng th e ca use to the tri al

court. See, e.g. , People

v. Davis , 303 Ill . App. 3d 684, 688, 70 8 N.E.2d

1181, 1 184 (1 999). Except for certain

specifi ed off enses , a prisoner se

rvi ng a term of

im prisonm ent recei ves one day of good-co nduct credit f or each day

of his pris on sentence . 730 ILCS 5/3-6-3(a)(2. 1) (Wes t 200 6) . A se nt ence of impriso nment be gins o n t he da t e whe n a de fendant is rec eived by t he Departmen

t o f Corrections (Depa

rtment). 730 ILCS 5/5-8-7(a) (West 2006). T here i s an apparent split of opi

nion in this court as to whether, under sections 3-6-3 an d 5-8-7 of the Unifi

ed Co de o f Co rr ec t io ns ( 73 0 I LC S 5 /3
- 6- 3, 5- 8- 7 ( We st 20 06 ) ) , t he da y o f se nt en cin g is inc lud ed in com pu ti n g of th e pre se n ten ci n g cre di t. The Fo ur t h Dist rict has he ld t hat t he da y of sent encing is no t included in calculat ing t he presentence c

redit if the def

endan t is rem anded to the Department on the sam e day, while

several ca se s ou tsi dethe Fou rth Di stri ct, i nc l udi ng thi s d i stri ct, h ave h el d i m pl i ci tl y i n th ei r ca l cul ati on of presentenci

ng credi t t hat the day

of sen tenci ng i s i ncl uded. See People v. Williams , 394 Ill . App. 3d 480 , 481-8 2, 917 N .E.2d 547 , 548-4 9 (200 9), appeal allow ed, 2 35 I ll. 2d 6 03 ( 201 0) (a nd cases ci ted therein). The Williamscour t reaso ned as fol lows: "Afte r c ons ider ing t he abo ve ca ses, we find litt le co ncr et e lega l found at ion fo r t he sp lit in c as es . T he ca se s t ha t inc lud e t he da y o f se nt en cin g in t he pr es en t en cin g c r ed it apparently

follow the un

dis puted rule that a port ion of a day spent i n custody adds

a day of c re dit by im

plicitly ackno wledg ing t hat a de fendant in cust od y spend s a p or t ion o f the sent encing d ay in cust od y prio r t o s ent encing. The cas es e xcluding t he da y of sent encing1-08-2420

-13-

from the credit seek to prevent a def endan t from recei

vi ng double credi

t: o ne day under sec t ion 5 -8 -7 for t he po rt ion o f the sent encing d ay spe nt in pre sent encing d et ent ion and one day und er sec t ion 3 -6 -3 for t he po rt ion o f the same d ay spe nt aft er issuanc e o f the mit t imus co mmenc es t he pr iso n se nt en ce in t he De pa rt men t 's le ga l (if n o t ph ysic al) cu st o dy. We find t he co ncer n ove r d ou ble cre dit per sua sive and t hus ho ld t hat a de fendant is not entitled to credit f

or t he day of sen tenci ng if the m

ittim us i s i ssued ef

fecti ve that sa me day . Con

ve rs el y , wh ere the m i tti m usi s n ot i ss ue d or n ot ef f ec ti ve on th e day of se nt en cin g, t he de fen da nt is no t yet in D ep ar t men t cu st o dy s o t ha t t he pr es en t en cin g c r ed it unde r se ct ion 5 -8 -7 app lies rat her t han any cr edit unde r se ct ion 3 -6 -3 . S ince de fendant 's mi tt im us i ssued on the day

of his sen

tenci ng, he is enti

tled to 287 days'

credit [as opposed to 288 days] for presentencing detention." Williams , 394 Ill . App. 3d at 483, 917 N.E .2d at 549-50. Foll owing Williams , t his co ur t also not ed in People v. Jones , 397 Ill . App. 3d 651, 656, 921 N.E.2d 7 68, 771 -72 (20 09): "[T ]he f ac t tha t the Un i f i ed Code of Corr ec ti ons demarc ate s tw o se

pa rate periodsf or calcu lating defend ant 's sent encing c re dit sug ges t s t hat a de fendant sho uld no t re ceive cr edit t wice fo r a single da y. In t he st at ut e qu ot ed a bove , su bsec t ion ( a) delineat es t he post sentencin

g credit, while subsection (b) deli neates the pre sentencin

g credit. 73 0 ILCS 5/ 5- 8- 7 ( We st 20 06 ) . T he fac t t ha t t he t wo se pa r at e s ub se ct io ns s et o ut t wo diffe r en t t ime1-08-2420

-14-

per iod s su gge st s a leg islative int ent t hat a de fendant sho uld no t re ceive c re dit t wice fo r t he same day." In thi s case, the potential

double credit problem

does not exist. This court may take judi ci al notice of the D epartm

en t's re cords, b eca

use they are pu bl i c docum en ts. People v. Peterson , 372Ill . A pp. 3d 1 010 , 10 19, 868 N.E .2d 329 , 33 6 (2 007 ). H ere , th e D ep artm en t's rec ords sh ow an adm is sion date of Jul

y 22, 2008 – the day

after Hill was sen tenced. Accordin

gly , we concl

ude t hat Hill i s ent itled t o p re sent encing c re dit for t he da t e o f sent encing. The re for e, we o rd er t he mi tt im us corrected t o reflect 304 days of presentenci

ng credi t for time served. V Fina lly, t he mit t imus in t his c as e r eflec t s t wo co nvict io ns fo r ma nufa ct ur e o r d elive ry o f a con trol l ed su b sta n ce . H i l l argu es th at on e c on v i cti on on th e m i tti m ussh oul d b e c orre cte d to ref l ec t a c onv

i cti on f or pos se ss i on of

a c ontr ol l ed su bs tan cewi th i nte nt to d el i ve r an d n ot man uf ac ture or de li ve ry of a c ontr ol l ed su bs tan ce . The Sta

te agre estha

t the pos se ss i on convi ction was i

ncorrectly recorded as a conviction f or manuf acture or deliv

ery. A ccordingl y, we correct the convi

ctions on Hi

ll 's m ittim us to reflect o ne conv

iction f or po ssessi

on of a controlled substanc e wi

th in tent t o deli

ver and one

convi ction f or deli very of a controlled substance. CONCLUSION Alt ho ug h t he t r ial ju dg e v io lat ed Ru le 4 31 ( b) , Hill fa iled t o sho w p lain e rr o rt ha t wo uld t r igg er an au t o mat ic r ev er sa l in t his c as e. Hill fo r feit ed t he ar gu men t t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t er r ed in re fusing t o r ule o n his mot ion in limine to ba r the i ntr oduc ti on of hi s prior con

vi cti ons f or i m peac hm en t purpose s, as

Hil l f ail ed to testi f

y at tria l . Hil l f ail ed to sh

ow that the

tria l court1-08-2420

-15-

ab us ed i ts d i scre tion i n i m pos i n g h i s c on cu rre n t 12 -y ea r s en ten ce s. Hi l l ' s m i tti m usi s c orre cte d to ref l ec t 304 da y s of pre sente nc i ng cre di t f or ti me s erv ed an d to re f l ec t con vi cti ons f or pos se ss i on of a controlled substance wi th in tent t o deli

ver and de li

very of a controlled substance. Af fi rmed;mi tt im us corrected.