THIRD DIVISION AUGUST 8, 2007 1-04-3669 THE PEOPLE OFTHE STATE OFILLINO IS, ) Appe al fro m the ) Ci rcu i t Cou rt of Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, ) Co o k C o un t y. ) v. ) No. 04 CR 14264 ) DONTELL BLA

KNEY, ) Ho no r ab le ) Jo hn P
. Kir by, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) Judge Presidin g. JU STI CECU

NNIN GH AM del i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Fo llowing a bench

trial, defen

dant Do ntell

Blakn ey was convi

cted o f posse ss io n o f a co nt rol le d

su bs t an ce ( co ca ine ) wit h in t en t t o de live r wit hin10 00 fe et o f apu blic ho us ing ag en cy, pos se ss i on

of a controlled substance (c oc aine) w ith int ent t o d eliver and pos se ss i on of ca n n ab i s wi th intent to deliv

er and sen tenced to seven ye ars’ i mprisonm ent. Defen

dant appeal s, contendi

ng that (1) his con vi cti on should be reduced to sim ple possession because t he evide nce a t t rial was insufficient to prov e b ey ond a re as ona

bl e dou bt t ha t he int en de d t o de liver t he co nt r o lled su bst an ce , ( 2) his convicti on should be reversed and reman ded because the record do es not refl ect that he kn o win gly and in tell ige ntly wai ved h is r ig ht of

con f ron tation b ef ore h i s a ttorn ey en tere d i nto a sti pul ati on re gard ingt he ch ain o f cu st o dy a nd t he ch emic al c o mpo sit io n o f t he r ec o ve r ed su bst an ce s, ( 3) his
con vi cti on f or posse ssi

on of cocai ne wi th i nten t to deli ver sh oul d be vacated b eca

use the tri al court
me rged tha t con vi cti on i nto h i s c onv i cti on f or pos se ss i on

of coc ai n e wi th in tent t o deli

ver wi thin 1000 feet o f a p ub lic ho us ing ag en cy a nd his m i tti m ussh oul d b e a men de d to r efle ct t his c o rr ec t io n, ( 4) his mi tt im us should be am

ended to reflect t he co rr ect names o f the off enses of whi ch h e was conv

icted, (5) his mi t t imus sho uld be a mended t o r eflect t he co rr ect t ime serve d in pr ese nt ence cus t od y, (6 ) he1-04-3669

2

is entitled to a $5 credit against the $3000 “f in e” asses sed to him

for each da

y he wa s i n c us tody pri or to sentenci

ng, (7) hi s due process ri ghts were vi olated when

the trial court assess ed a

$5 fee fo r t he Spi na l Cord I nju ry Pa r alys is C ur e R es ea r ch T rus t Fu nd ( Sp ina l Co r d F un d) , an d ( 8) his pena l ty of $20 for the Violent Crim e Victim s Assistance Fund s

hould b e vacated be cause the f ee was errone ousl

y ass ess ed ag ai

nst hi m . In People v . Blakn

ey , 366 Ill . App. 3d 925, 853 N.E.2d 885 ( 2006) we affi rmed defendant’s
co nvictio ns and sen

tence, vacated a $5 Traum a Fund f ee and a $20 Vi olen

t Crim e Vi ctim s Ass is tance fee, am ended the costs and f

ees ord er to r efle ct a c r ed it o f $1 02 0, an d o r de r ed t he cle rk o f t he cir cu it courtto am

end the m ittim us to reflect t ha t de fen da nt sho uld r ec eiv e 2 04 da ys’ cr ed it fo rhis pretrial i nc arc era ti on an d to indic at e t hat he h ad bee n co nvict ed o f po ss es sio n o f a con trol l ed su b sta n ce wi th intent to deliv

er withi n 1000 feet of a public ho using a genc y and po sses sion o f cannabis w ith int ent to del i ver. Pursu

an t to a superv

i sory order by our su preme c ourt we hav e vacated our origin

al opi ni on and now reco nside r o ur jud gme nt in light o f People v . Jones , 223 Ill . 2d 589, 861 N.E. 2d 967. Defend ant wa s ch arge d b y i n di ctm en t wi th : (1 ) p oss es si

on of a c on trol l ed su b sta n ce wi th intent to deliv

er withi n 1000 f ee of a sch

ool (720 ILCS 570/401(c)(2), 407( b)(1) (West 2004)); (2) pos se ss i on

of a c on trol l ed su b sta n ce wi th i n ten t to deliver wit hin 100 0 feet of a public ho using agency ( 720 ILC S 5 70 /4 01 (c )(2 ), 4 07 (b )(1 ) (W est 20 04 ));(3 ) p oss es si

on of a c on trol l ed su b sta n ce wi th intent t o d eliver ( 720 ILC S 5 70/ 401 (c )( 2) (Wes t 200 4) ); a nd ( 4) po sses sion o f cannabis w ith int ent to deli ver (720 ILCS 55 0/5(f

) (We st 2004 )). Chi cago Police Of

fi cer An thony Dri ver wast he so le pr o se cu t io n w it ne ss at de fen da nt ’s t r ial.1-04-3669

3

Driv er t est ifi ed t hat on M ay 14, 200 4, at app ro ximately 6: 50 p .m. , he and other p oli ce of f i cers were executi ng a search

warrant at 747 East 130th P l ac e i n C hi cago. Af ter Driver an

nounced h

is off ic e and demand ed e nt ry, d efenda nt shut t he sc re en do or . U po n gaining ent ry, D river saw defend ant hal fway in the cl oset o f the f

irst f loor. The police detain

ed defe ndan t and a woman, who was la ter arrested and ch

arged separately

, and bega n to search

t he pr emises. In t he cl oset where defen dant was standi ng, Driv er found one pl

astic b ag contain

in g 35 sm alle r plas tic ba gs of a wh

ite rock-li ke substanc e sus pec t ed t o be cocain e and three l

arge “ f reezer” b ag s of

su sp ec t ca

nn ab i s i n th e s l eeve of
a mal e jacket. He also fou nd

an o t he rpla st ic b ag co nt ain ing ap pr o ximat ely 1 00 sma ller emp t y pla st ic bags. In a ddit ion, Dr iver fo und 12 mo r e p las t ic b ag s c o nt ain ing su sp ec t ca nna bis fr o m a ma le ja cket sleeve in a bedr oo m on t he sec ond f l oor. E lse wh er e in t he ap ar t men t , Dr ive rr ec o ve r ed an ele ct r o nic scale. Fi nal ly , the police recover ed a letter a ddr esse d t o d efenda nt at 747 Ea st 130 t h Place , t he address of the apartmen

t. At t he polic e st at ion, Dr iver se aled t he ite ms in a heat seal ed bag, label

ed it wi th a specifi

c i nve ntory num

ber and de

posited i t into the saf

e. The pa rti es t hen st ipulat ed t o t he cha in of cu st od y and t he che mical compo sitio n of t he recovered contrab an d. T he y s t ipulat ed t hat a fo re nsic chemist wo uld t est ify t hat she r ece ived t he in ven to ried item s i n a h eat seale d condi

tion label ed wi th a specifi

c i nve ntory num ber f rom the Chi

cago Police De pa rtm en t an d th at th e en v el ope con tai n ed 15 i tem s of su sp ect c ann abi s and 35 i tem s of suspect coc ai ne . The p arti

essti pul ate d that 8 of

t he 15 items o f susp ect co caine t est ed p os itive f or t he presence of 1.1 gra ms of cocai ne and that t he tot al est imated weight of the 35 i tem s wa s 4.8 gram s. Fo llowing t he st ipulat ions, t he Stat e rested. Af ter defendan

t’s motion f

or a directed verdict1-04-3669

4

was de nie d, he r es t ed wit ho ut pr es en t in g a ny ev id en ce . The tri

al cou rt f oun d de f en da nt g ui l ty on cou n ts II (p os sess ion o f a co nt ro lled subs tance w it h int en t t o de liver wit hin 1 00 0 fe et o f a p ub lic hou sing agen

cy ), III (po ssessi

on of a controll ed

su bs tan cewi th i nte nt to d el i ve r) a nd IV ( pos se ss i on of c an na bis wi th i nten t to deli ver). At sen tenc i ng, th e tri al court m erged coun t III i nto coun t II. Def endan t fi l ed a m otion f or a new trial , which was de

nied. The trial

court sentence d defen

da nt as a C la ss X off

ender to seven years’ impr iso nme nt an d g av e h im cr ed it fo r19 9 d ays fo rt ime se rved pri or to sentenci

ng. The trial
co ur t also or der ed d efenda nt t o pa y a $30 00 C ont ro lled Su bst ance Asses sment , $ 20 t o t he Vio lent Cr ime Vict im Assistanc e Fund , $ 100 t ot he T ra uma Fu nd and $ 5 t o t he Sp inal Cor d Fu nd. Defend ant now appeals. Defend ant f

i rst con tend s tha t thi s court sh

oul d re ve rs e h i s c onv i cti on a nd rem an d f or re sent encing on th

e l es ser-i nc l ude d of f ense of pos se ss i on of

a contr olled sub stance because th e S tate fai le d to prove that he in

tended to deli

ver the 4.8 grams of cocai ne h e possessed. Wh en a de fen dant challenge s t he su ffi

ciency o f the evidenc e, t he r elevant que st ion fo r t he
re viewing court is

whether, af

ter viewi ng the ev ide nce in the light most favo ra ble to t he pr os ecu t ion, any rational trier of f act cou l d f i n d th e def en da n t gui l ty bey ond a reas onab l e doubt. People v . Tenney , 205 Ill . 2d 411, 427, 793 N.E.2d 5 71, 581 (2002 ). In orde r to con vi ct a de f en da nt of pos se ss i on of
a contro ll ed su b sta n ce wi th i n ten t to de l i v er , the S tate

mus t pro ve the def

endan t (1) had knowledge of the pre senc e of

the na rcoti cs , (2 ) had

pos se ss i on or

con trol of the narcotics an

d (3) i n ten de d to deliv er the n arcoti cs. 720 ILCS 570 /40 1 (Wes t 2 004 ); Peop l e v . Robi ns on , 167 Ill . 2d397, 407, 657 N.E.2d 1 020, 10 26 (19 95).1-04-3669

5

The element s o f intent t o d eliver ar e ge ner ally pro ved byci rcum stan tia l evi den ce. Peo ple v. Be ve r ly , 278 Ill . App. 3d 794, 799, 663 N.E.2d 1061, 1065 (1996). Accordingl y, “ this is sue i nvol ves t he exam in ation of the n

atur e and qua nt ity

of ci rcumstantial

evi dence n ecessary to support an in feren ce of i ntent to deliv

er.” Rob i ns on , 167 Ill . 2d at 408, 657 N.E.2d at 102 6. In Rob i ns on , our su pr eme court noted that numerous fact or s have been c ons ider ed by I lli nois c ou rt s as p ro bat iveof
a de f en da n t’s i n ten t to del i ver i n c ontrol l ed subs

tanc e prose cutions. Rob i

ns on , 167 Ill . 2dat 408, 657 N.E.2d at 1026. These factors in cl ude whether the qua

nti ty of t he co nt ro lled subs t ance in a defendant’s possession is

to o larget o be v i ew ed

as b ei n g f or p er son al con su m pti on , the h i gh pu ri ty of the dru g c onf i sc ate d, th

e p oss es si on of we ap ons , th e p oss es si

on of a l arg e q ua nti ty of cas h, t he pos se ss i on

of pol i cesc an ne rs , b ee pers orce llula rt ele ph o ne s, t he po ss es sio n o f dr ug pa r ap he rna lia and the m

an ner i n w hi ch the s ubs tanc e i s packag ed. Rob i

ns on , 167 Ill . 2d at 408, 657 N. E.2d at 1 026 -27. Rob i

ns on cl ea rl y i n ten de d to m erel y prov i de ex am pl es of f actorsan d to a l l ow c our ts to uti l ize othe

r f actors. Rob i

ns on , 167 Ill . 2dat 408 -41 5, 6 57 N .E .2d at 102 6-1 030 ; People v. Bush , 214 Il l . 2d 318 , 327, 82 7 N.E.2d 455, 46 1 (200 5). Defe ndan t relies on several

cases, in cl udin g People v . Crensh

aw , 202 Ill . App. 3d 432, 559 N.E .2d 105 1 (1 990 ); People v . Thomas , 261 Ill . App. 3d 366, 633 N.E.2d 839 (1994); and Pe o ple
v. Hodge , 250 Ill . App. 3d 736, 620 N.E.2d 651 (1 993 ), in supp or t of his co nt ent ion t hat t he evi dence in t his c as e is insu fficie nt t o su st ain hi s convi ction f or po ssessi

on of a controll ed substance wi th i n ten t to deliver . I n Crensh

aw , the court found that the f act the defen

dant possessed

22 sma ll pa cketsof

coc ai ne , total i ng 11. 2 gr am s, wasnot suf f i cien t in i tself to estab l i sh

an i nten t to deli ver. Crensh aw , 20 2 I ll. App. 3d a t 436 , 5 59 N .E .2 d at 105 3. In Thomas , t he court hel d the evi dence was1-04-3669

6

i ns uf f i ci en t to prov e the i nte nt to d el i ve r wh ere the de f en da nt wasf oun d i n p oss es si on of a total of 5.5 gr ams o f co caine d ivided int o 2 7 individua l pack et s and had a l oaded s hotgun
. Thomas , 26 1 I ll. App. 3d at 370-71, 633 N. E.2d at 842. In Hodge , t he co ur t re ver sed t he defend ant ’s co nvictio n and fou nd that posses sio n o f 4.0 7 g ra m s of coc ai n e, $9 00 i n ca sh an d a h an dg un wa s n ot s uf f i ci en t to establi sh a con vi cti on f or posse ssi

on wi th i nten t to deli ver. Hodge , 250 Ill . App. 3d at 747, 620 N.E.2d at 660. But these cases h ave b een seri

ously questioned an

d probabl y repudi ated by our supr em e court. Rob i

ns on , 16 7 I ll. 2d at 412, 657 N.E .2d at 1028; see Be ve r ly , 278 Ill . App. 3d at 800-01, 663 N.E. 2d at 1066.

“ [W]hen a def endan t is charged wi th poss ess i on of

a con troll ed subs tanc e, in appropriat e ci rcumstances , packagi

ng al one m igh t be suf fi ci ent ev ide nc e o f in t en t t o de liver
. ” ( E mph as is in origi na l .) Rob i ns on , 16 7 I ll. 2 d a t 41 4, 65 7 N
. E
. 2d at 10 29
. Ho we ve r , wh en o nly a small amou nt of drugs is found, i n orderto establ i sh

the i nten t to deli ver, the m i ni m um evi den ce a revi ewi ng c ourt needs t o affir m a

convi ction i s that the drugs were packaged f or sale, an d at least one addi

tional f ac tor tend i ng to sh ow i nten t to deli ver. Be ve r ly , 278 Ill . App. 3d at 802, 663 N.E .2d at 1067. In thi s ca se, the ev

i den ce pre sen ted at tri al

met m uch more t han t he

m i ni m um am oun t of evi dence ne ce ss ar y t o affir m de fen da nt ’s co nvic t io n. T he ev ide nc e e st ab li s hed t hat defend ant pos se ss ed a total of 4. 8 gr ams o f co caine p ack age d in 35 sep ar at e small plast ic bags and a total of 2,506.3 gr ams o f cannabis c ont ained in 15 plast ic bags . I n a dd ition, defen dant possessed an electronic scale and approximatel y 100 addi

tional one-in

ch em pty plastic b ags. De f en da n t, re lyi ng o n People v . Delgado , 256 Ill . App. 3d 119, 123, 628 N.E. 2d 727, 730 (1993 ), asserts that the presence of a la rge amo un t o f ca nna bis is

not disposi

tive of an i ntent to deliv

er1-04-3669

7

a sm alle r amount of cocai

ne. Al though we do not agree wi th d ef en da nt’ s b road i nte rpreta ti on of Delgado , even a ssu ming

defen dant’s ass ertion i s true, we fi nd thatt he r e w as su fficie nt ev ide nc e in t his ca se as t he po lice als o fo un d a pp r o ximat ely 1 00 emp t y pla st ic bagsand an el ectronic scal

e, which is co nsist ent wit h dr ug p ack aging a nd dist ribut ion. Defend ant nex

t contends tha

t hi s c onv i cti on s hou l d b e re ve rs ed an d h i s c as e re man de d f ora new tria l be caus e the

record is devoi d of any

in dic ation that

he kn owingl y a nd i ntell ige ntly wai ved his co nst itu t ional r ight of

con f ron tati on b ef oreh i s a ttorn ey en tered i n to a st ipulat ion r ega rd ing t he ch ain of custody an

d the chem

ic al composi tion of the recovered subs tance s. Defe ndan t’s exact
con ten ti on has recen tly been addressed

an d r eje ct ed by o ur su pr eme co ur t in People v . Phill ips , 217 I ll. 2d 270, 280-287, 840 N.E. 2d 1194, 1200-1204 ( 20 05 )
. T he r efo r e, no fur t he rdis cu ss io n o f t his iss ue is n ec es sa ry. Defend ant nex

t raises s everal

issues regardin

g hi s mi tt im us. De f en da n t ar gu es an d th e S tate concedesthat t he m

ittim us must be am en de d to re f l ec t the prop er judg

men t of t he t rial co ur t and t he correct am

oun t of tim e defe ndan t served prior to sentenci

ng. The m

ittim us re flect s t hat defend ant was convi cted of counts II, III and IV. At sentenci ng, the trial

court m erged coun t III, the l ess erin cl uded off en se, i nto coun t II. Thus , the m

i ttim us m ust b e am ended to ref

l ect this m

erg er. I n add itio n, de f

en da nt wasi n c us tody f rom t he da t e o f his arr est on M ay 14, 200 4, unt il hi s sent encing
on Dece m ber 3, 200 4. The

ref ore, the p arti es a

gre e he i s en t it led t o 20 3 d ays o f cr ed it ag ain st his sentence inste ad o f 199 days p ur sua nt t o s ect ion 5 -8 -7 (b) of t he Unified Co de o f Cor re ct ions ( t he Uni f i ed Code) (730 ILCS 5/5 -8-7(b) (We st 2004 )). Defend ant also ar gue s t hat th e m i ttimus must be amend ed t o r eflect t he pr op er t itle o f the1-04-3669

8

off en ses of wh i ch he wa s c onv

i cte d. Th

e m i tti m usref l ec ts th at d ef en da nt wascon

vi cte d of “M FG/ DEL COCAINE/SCH/PUB H,” “ MFG/DE L 01-15 CR C OCA INE,” a nd “ MF G/DEL CA NNA BIS/2 000< 500.” As i

ndicated above, def

endan t was convicted of possessi on of a controlled substanc e wit h intent to deli ver withi n 1000 feet of a publi

c housing agency

(720 ILCS 570/401(c)(2) (West 2004) ) and possession of cann abi s with i ntent t o deliv

er (720 I LCS 550/401( f) (West 2004) ). He wa s n ot con vi cte d of manufact ur ingthe substan ces. Pursuant to Supr em

e Court Rule 615(b)(1) (134 Ill . 2d R. 615 (b) (1 )) , w e dir ect t he cler k o f the circu it co ur t t o a mend t he mitt imus to re flect t he proper j udgm

en t of th e tr i al cou rt, th e p rop er n am es of th e c on v i cti on s a n d th e c orre ct n

umb er of da ys fo rwh ich de fen da nt is en titl ed to cred i t. People v . Butler , 354 Ill . App. 3d 57, 69, 819 N.E. 2d 1133, 1 143 (2 004). Defend ant also c onte

nds th at he i s enti

tl ed to a$5 per day c

redit f or t he 203 days he spe nt in presentence i

ncarcer ation, whi

ch h e calcul ates to be $1015, agai nst the $3000 Controll ed Substance As ses sm en t ordered b

y the tri al courtpursua nt to section 411.2 of the C ontro ll ed Substances

A ct (th e A

ct) (7 20IL CS 57 0/

41 1.2(West 20 04 )), i

n ac corda n ce wi th se cti on 110 -14of t he Code of Cri

mi nal Procedure o f 1963 (the Code) (725 ILCS 5/110-14 (West 2004)). Sect ion 110- 14prov i de s i

n re l ev an t pa rt: “(a) Any p er so n inc ar ce r at ed o n aba ilable offen se wh o doe s n ot
su pp ly bail an d against whom a f

in e is le vi ed on convi

ction of s uch offense sh

al l be al l owe d a cre di t of $5 f oreac h day

so in carcerated upon appli cation of the defendant.” 725 ILCS 5/110-14 (We st 2004 ). The Stat e argues t hat defendant is not ent itled to t hi s credit because t he inc ar ce r at io n c r ed it1-04-3669

9

o nly applie s to “fi

nes,” an d not “asses sm

en ts. ” B ut o ur sup re me co ur t has r ece nt ly held that t he i nc arc era ti on credi t is appl i cab l e towards

the C ontrol l ed Sub stan

ce A sse ssm

en t. Pe o ple v. Jones , 223 I ll. 2d at 587-592, 861 N. E.2d at 871- 898. Th i s op i n i on i s i n ac cord w i

th pr ev io us de cis io ns o f t his
cou rt. See t he disc uss ion in People v . Fort , No. 1- 04-1937, sl i p op. at 7-10(Ill . Ap

p. Ma y 29, 200 7). Thus, de fen da nt is entitled to a $5 per day credi t against hi s $3000 Con

trol l ed Su b sta n ce A ss es sm en t. T he St at e a r gu es t ha t ev en if the Controlled

Su bst an ce Ass es sme nt is a “fine , ” d efe nd an t is
en ti tl ed to th e $ 5 cre di

t f or on l y 60 da y s. The S tate

base s i ts c onte nti on on t he fact t hat as o f June 10, 2003, defen

dant was servin

g a three- year m

andato ry supervi sed releaset er m (MS R) fo llowing his r ele as e fr o m pr iso n. Se e 7 30 I LC S 5 /5
- 8- 1( d) ( 1) ( We st 20 04 )
. Ac co r din g t o t he St at e, o n Ju ly 12, 20 04 , fo llo win g d efe nd an t ’s Ma y 14 ar r es t in the current case, hi s MSR was rev oked and he was returnedto t he Illi

nois Department of Corr ections (the Depar tment). T he Stat e argues t hat because de f en da nt wasservi

ng ti me f orviolatin

g hi s MSR as of

Jul y 12, h e was no l onger ser ving t ime on a “b ai la ble off ense.” W e di sagree. Fi rs t, t he record d

oes n ot support the S tate’s

conten tion
. Al though defen

dant’s presen

tence invest igat ivereport in

dic ates that he had previ

ously been convicted of the Class X

off ense of armed robb ery o n Ja nu ar y 18 , 20 02 , t ha t he wa s p ar o le d fro m priso n o n Jun e 10, 2003, and that he was returnedto the Departmen t o n Jul y 12, 2004, we fin

d t he reco rd do es not clearly suppo rt the S tat e’s argumen t t hat defe

ndan t was returned to the Departmen t “to serve the remai

nder of h is [MSR].” Second, ev en

i f the re cord does

i n f act su pport the State ’sconten

tion , i t la cksmeri t. We find Pe o ple v. Spencer , 347 Ill . App. 3d 483, 807N.E .2d 122 8 (2 004 ), a

de ci si on f rom the Fifth District and it s a pp licat io n o f Peop l e v . Robi ns on , 172 Ill . 2d452, 667 N.E.2d 1305 (19 96) , a dec i si on f rom1-04-3669

10

our supreme court, instructive on this is sue. In Spencer , a s in this c ase , t he issue was t he amo unt of mo net ar y cred it t o w hich the defend ant wa s enti

tl ed un der s ec ti on

110 -1 4 o f the Co de. The defend ant had b een arrested on several in itial charges, posted bond and w asrel ea se d. H e then

com m i tted a se con d of f ense wh i l e ou t on bond. He wa s e ve nt ua lly re t ur ne d t o cu st o dy a nd t he co ur t inc r ea se d h is bon d on the ini tial off enses. He t her eaft er pled g uilty t o t he second off ense an d im me dia tely began servi ng a one-y

ear sentence . He was the

n tried an d con vi cted of the i ni tia l off en ses . On ap pea l, t he parties disputed the num ber of day s to which

the $5 credit of se ction 110-14 appl ie d. The co ur t in Spencer

l ooke d to Rob i

ns on , a ca se f

rom our s up r eme co ur t add re ssing sentenci ng credi t undersection

5-8-7(b ) of th e Un i f i ed Code , f

or guidan ce. In Rob i

ns on , the c ourt hel d t ha t a d efe nd an t is e nt it led t o se nt en cin g c r ed it un de rse ct io n 5
- 8- 7( b) wh en he o rshe is simu lt an eo us ly

i n cu sto dy on t wo cha rges. In that case, the defe ndan t, who had previously

been
ar re st ed fo r mur der and p os t ed ba il, co mmi t t ed t he off

en se of arm ed rob bery . Wh en the tri al court thereafter i n crea se d h

i s b on d on

th e m urder c h arge , the def

en da n t wa s ta ken i n to cu st o dy. He then ple d guil ty to t he arm

ed robbery

and b egan serv

in g hi s sen tence on that offen

se. Wh en h e compl eted his armed ro bber y sent ence , he ask ed t he t rial co ur t t o r edu ce t he bond on hi s m urder charge. The trial cou rt a gr eed and t he de fendant was re leased . T he de fendant was co nvicte d o f murde r a nd
co ncea lmentof a homi

cidal death alm

ost two years later. On app eal, t he pa rt ies disp ut ed t he amo unt
o f se cti on 5- 8- 7(b ) c re di

t to wh i ch th e def en da n t wa s e n ti tl ed . Th e rev i ewi n g c our t h el d th at th e defend ant was ent itled t o c re dit for t he ent ire t ime he was in cu st od y from whe n hi s bond was in creased to when he was rel

eased af ter co mplet ing his sent ence on t he sub seq uen t arm ed rob bery1-04-3669

11

co nvictio n. Rob i

ns on , 172 Ill . 2d at 463, 667 N. E.2d at 1310. The court reasoned that even if the defend ant had no t been incarcerated o n t he ar med r o bbe ry o ffen se , he wo uld ha ve r ema ine d in custody o n t he murder charge b ecause of h is fai lure to post t he i

ncreased b ond im

posed on that off en se. Rob i

ns on , 172 Ill . 2d at 459, 667 N. E.2d at 1308. The Spencer

co ur t , no t ing t hat t he de fend ant in Rob i ns on was ent itled t o s ect ion 5 -8 -7 (b)
cr edit even fo r t he t ime he was s er ving a se nt ence on a subse quent convi ction, hel d that although

a porti on of the disputed t im

e was sp ent serv ing a o ne- year s ent ence on t he se co nd o ffense, t he defend ant al so remai

ned i n custody on the i ni tia l off en ses . The co ur t re aso ned t hat as in Rob i ns on , t he defen dant would have rem

ai ned i n custody on t he initial offense s eve n if he had no t been s er ving t he sen tenc e on the se cond

off en se d ue to his f ail ure to post b ond. Spencer , 34 7 I ll. App. 3d at 490, 807 N. E. 2d a t 123 4. The co ur t also fou nd t ha t t he init ial o ffen se s d id n o t ce as e t o be ba ilable un t il he wassen tenc ed f or them
. Spencer , 347 Ill . App. 3d at 491, 807 N.E .2d at 1234. We ack now ledge t hat t his case is so mewhat different t han Rob i ns on and Spe ncer . For
exam ple , ra t her t han inv olvi

ng a defendan

t who is released from custody on bond who commi ts a subs equ ent of

f ense , thi s c as e i

nv ol ve s a de f en da nt b ei ng retu rned to prison f ol l owi ng the rev oca ti on of a p r ev io us ly impo se d M SR t er m. W e f i nd thi s d i sti nc ti on i m material to Spencer ’s concl

usi on that t he offense s for which t he de fendant was initially ar re st ed d id no t cea se t o be bai la ble until he was sentence d on those offen

ses. Theref

ore, in thi s case, we concl ude that the offen

ses f or which defend ant wa s a

rre ste d on

Ma y 1 4, 2 004 , di

d n ot ce as e to b e b ai

l ab l e u nti l he wa s s en ten ce d on De ce mbe r3, 20 04 , r eg ar dle ss o f o n w ha t ba sis he wa s be ing he ld in t he int er im. Spencer , in relying

on Rob i ns on , f ocu se d on

whether th

e d ef en da nt wasen ti tl ed to se cti on1-04-3669

12

5- 8- 7( b) credit. In thi s case, t he r e is no qu es t io n t ha t de fe nd an t wa s “ in c us t o dy” fo ro ve r20 0 d ays bef o re h e w as

se n ten ce d. A s pre v i ous l

y addr es se d, t

h e S tate h as ev en con ce de d a s m

uch . B oth Rob i ns on and Spencer

mak e c lea rt ha t wh en a d ef en da nt is s imu lt an eo us ly bei ng he ld on two offenses, even

i f dur i ng tha t ti me h e or she is servi

ng a sen tence on a convi

ction, he or she i

s enti tled to credi t for that tim

e on the f i rst of f en se. Fo llo win g t ho se ca se s, we find t ha t de fen da nt is entitled to a $5 per day

credit f or t he en tire tim e he was hel d on the current offe

nses , even

i f f orpart o f that tim e he was servi ng a MSR term

im posed due to an un

related off

ense. We t her efo re re

ject t he St at e’s r eliance o n People v . Lowry , 231 Ill . App. 3d 788, 596 N.E.2d 1218 (1992). In that case, t he court refused to accept the defen

dant’s contenti on that he was entitled to a $5 credi

t for ea ch day he washe l d i

n custody, i

nc lud ing t he t im e he was serv i ng ti me f or a previous vio lat io n o f ba il

bond conv

iction, becaus e that convicti on was “to tally unrelated to the case at ha nd.” Lowry

, 231 Ill . Ap

p. 3d a t 797, 596N.E.2d a

t 1223. Lowry

, howe ve r, w asde ci

de d pr i or t o o ur sup re me co ur t ’s de cision in Rob i ns on , an d pr i or to Spencer
. We co nc lud e t ha t de fen da nt is e nt it led t o a $ 5 p er da y cr ed it fo rt he en t ire t ime he wa s in custody f rom h i s a rre st o n Ma y 14un ti l h i s s en te nc i ng onDecem

ber 3. As a

ddressed ab ove, we ca l cul ate thi s to be 2 03 da

y s. De f endan t is there f ore en ti tl ed to a credi t o f $1015 agai

nst his $3000 Con trol l ed Su b sta n ce A ss es sm en t. Defend ant contends that his due process righ

ts were violated when

he was ordered

to pay $5 to the Sp i na l Cord Fund

(730 IL CS 5/5 -9-1.1(c ) (We st 2004 )). Defend ant contends that the fee does not bear a rational relationsh ip to t he crim

e of possessi on of

a con tro l l ed su b sta n ce wi th i n ten t to del i ver. Ou r sup re me c our

t h as re cen tl y deter m i n ed th at n o su ch ra ti on al re l ati on sh i p te st a pp l i es to1-04-3669

13

thi s ch arge, w hi ch i s i n the nature of

a f i ne . People v . Jones , 22 3 I ll. 2d 589, 595-606, 861 N.E .2d 967, 983 -9 89. Acco rd ingly, we a ffi rm t he or der t hat defend ant pay a $ 5 fee t o t he Spin al Cord Fund. Fin ally, defen

dant al so contends that the tr ia l c o urt impro per ly i

mpo sed a $2 0 fine for t he Violent Crime Vict ims Assista nce Fu nd bec aus e it a lread y im po sed t wo ot her “f

ine s”: a $3000 Contro ll ed Substance as sessm

ent and a $100 Traum

a Fund A ssessm ent. The State respo nds that defen dant was properly

ordered t o pay

$20 to the Violent Crim

e Victim s Assistance Fund because the Tra um a Fu nd a nd th e Con troll ed Sub stan

ce Asse ssm

en t are “ f ees ,” not “f

i ne s.” The Vi ol en

t Cr i me Vi cti m s A ct prov i de s i n re l ev an t pa rt th at: “W hen any per son i s c on victed in

Ill in ois *** of a

n off ense l is ted bel ow, *** and no ot her f

in e i s i mposed , t he fo llowing pen al ty sha ll be coll ected b

y the C i rcui t Court Clerk: (1 ) $25, f or an y cri me of violen ce as de fine d in su bse ct io n ( c) o f Se ct io n 2 o f t he Cr ime V ict ims Com pens ati on A ct; and ( 2) $20 for any ot her felony or mi sdemean or, ex cl udi ng a ny cons ervati on of

f en se.” (Em phasi s ad ded.) 725 ILCS 240/1 0(c)(1 ), (2) (W

est 200 4). The co ur t in Jon es also held t hat t he T ra uma Fu nd c har ge is a fine and su bjec t t o se t o ff. Jones , 223 Ill . 2dat 592-595, 861 N.E.2d at 981-983. In li ght our fi ndi ng ab ove that the Contro ll ed Substance A ss es sm en t i s a l so a ty pe of “ f i n e, ” w e f i n d th at th e tr ial c ourt erroneously

ordered def endan t to pay $ 20 to the Vi ole

nt Cri me Vi cti m s A ssi stan ce F und and we re

verse th at order. For the foregoin

g reasons, we af

fi rm def endan t’s convi ctions of possession of a controlled substanc e wi

thi n 1 000 f eet of a p ub l i c h

ous i ng ag en cy an d pos se ss i on

of a c on trol l ed su b sta n ce wi th1-04-3669

14

intent t o de liver as we ll

as his seven-y

ear prison s entence. W

e al so aff irm the fee s asses sed

agains t defend ant of $300 0 (Controll ed Su b sta nce Assessm

ent), $100 (Trauma Fun

d Asse ssm

ent) and $5 (S pina lCord Fu nd )
. We va ca t e t he $2 0 fe e ( Vio len t Cr ime V ict ims As sis t an ce )
. De fen da nt sha ll
re ceive a $1015 credit agai

nst these f ees bas ed upon hi s 203 days of presen tence in carcerat ion. Those 203 days sha ll also be cr ed it ed ag ain st his s en t en ce . T he mit t imus sha ll be correct ed to reflect t hese ord ers. Af

fi rmed i n part and order vacated in part; mi tt im us am ended. THEIS, P.J ., and K

AR NEZIS , J., con

cur.