Filed 8/18/10 NO. 4-09-0 427 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE O F ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CLAUDE MITCHELL, Defe ndant-A ppellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from Circuit C ourt of McLean County No. 08CF850 Honorab le Paul G. Lawrence, Judge Pre siding

.

JUSTICE AP PLETON d elivered the opini on of the co urt: For two reason s, defen dant, Claude Mi tchell, appeals from the sentence the trial court imposed on him for forgery (720 ILC S 5/17-3 (a)(2) (West 20 08)): (1) the court shorted him five days of credit against his five-year prison term, and (2) the court faile d to give him monetary credit against his fines. The five days represent the period that defendant spent in the county jail after sentenci ng but before his transfer to the Illinois Department of Corrections (DOC). It appears, however, from DOC's official Web site, that DOC has g i ven defe ndant credit for both the three days he was in custody before sen tencing and the five days he was in custody after sentencing.

As forthe monetary credit against his fine s, it acc

rues only up

to the date

of sentenc ing. It follows that while defendant is entitled to monetary creditfor the three days he was in custody before sentencing, he is not entitled to monetary cred it for the five days he spent in jail after sentencing. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's judgment as modified- 2 -

to allow defendant a total monetary credit of $15 at the rate of $5 per day for three days. I. BACK GROUND On July 30, 2008, the State indicted defendant on three counts of forgery. Defendant was in custody from July 23 to July 25, 2008. On January 16, 2009, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of forgery committed June 18, 2008 (720 ILCS 5/17-3 (a) (2) (West 2008)), and on March 12, 2009, the trial court sentenced him to impris onment for five years, giving hi m credi t for three d ays of

presente nce custo dy, July 23 to 25, 2008. The court also assessed various "fees" a gainst defenda

nt, including a Children' s Advocacy Center f ee of $ 15 and a drug-court fee of $10. At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, the court remanded d efendan t to the custo dy of the sheriff. Accordingto a memora ndu m that the s heriff file d on Marc

h 27, 200 9, defendantwas in the county jail duri ng two periods : July 23 to 2 5, 2008, and March 12 to 17, 2009. Thus, he was i n jail for five day s after the

trial cour

t sentenc ed him o n March 1 2, 2009. According to DOC's official Web site, he actually was transferred to DOC on March 17, 2009 , but his " custody d ate" is M arch 9, 2 009. II. ANALYSIS A. Credit Against the Sentence of Imprisonment On the authority of section 5-8-7(b) of the Unified Code of Corrections (Unified Code) (730 ILCS 5/5-8-7(b) (West 2008)), defendant argues that he i s entitled to credit, against h is sentenc e of imprisonment, for the five days he spent in custody after sentencing but before his transfer to DOC (March 12 t o 17, 2009). Section 5-8-7(b) provides: "The offender shall be given credit on the determinate sentence *** for time spent in custody as a result of the offens e for which the sentence was imposed." It is true that- 3 -

because defendant was in jail from March 12 through 16, 2009, he was incustody during those five days and, therefore, under the plain, unqualified terms of section 5-8-7(b), he is entitled to credit for those additional five days. With that proposition, the State agrees.

Nevertheless, we decline defendant's request to rema nd this c

ase with directions to award of an additional five days of cred it, because w e have n o reason to suppose that defendanthas bee n denie d such c redit. A ccordi ng to the offi cial Web site of DOC, his "ad

mission date" i s March 1 7, 2009, but his "custody date " is Marc h 9, 2009. See People v. Monroe , 366 Ill. App. 3d 1080, 1097, 852 N.E.2d 888, 904 (2006) ( "we take judicial notice of the official public records of the Department of Corrections"). Apparently, by these notations, DOC is giving defendant cred it for e ight days: three days in c ustody before se ntencin g plus five d ays in c ustody afte r sentenc

ing. B. Monetary Credit Against the Fines Defendant further argues that the Child Advocacy Center fee and drug-court fee are fines (see People v. P aige , 378 Ill. App. 3d 95, 10 1-02, 880 N.E.2d 67 5, 682 (2007

)) andthat he is entitled to credit, against these fines, in the amount of $5 per day for the eight days he spentin custod y before h is trans fer to DOC (s ee 725 ILCS 5/11 0-14 (We st 2008)). The State agrees, but we a gre e with de fendant o nly partly

on this po int. He i s entitled to monetary

credit fo r July 23 to 25, 2008, but n ot for March 12 to 17, 2009, because the latter period c ame after

the sente ncing on

March 12 , 2009. While a defendant may

receive monetary

credit un der sec

tion 110- 14 for

time spent in custody after a fin ding of gui lt, that credit is limited to the period between the verdict and sentencing. People v. Raya , 250 Ill. A pp. 3d 795, 802-0 3, 621 N.E. 2d 222, 227- 28 (1993); People v. S mith , 258 Ill. App. 3d 261, 270, 630 N.E.2d 147, 153 (1994); People- 4 -

v. McNair , 325 Ill. App . 3d 725, 726-27, 7 59 N.E.2d 5 84, 585 (200 1). Also, section 110-14 provides for credit against a fine levied upon " conviction" ( 725 ILCS 5/110-14 (West 2008)), and con viction o ccurs at s entenci ng. III. CONCLUSION Therefore, we modify

the trial c

ourt's judgm ent so as

to al low defend ant a credit of $15 against his fines. Otherwise, we a ffirm the judgment as modified. Affirmed as modified. MYERSCOUGH, P.J., and POPE, J., concur.