1 NOTI CE Decisi on fi led 04 /06/ 07. The text of this dec ision m ay be changed or
corr ected prior to the filing of a Petit ion for Re hea ri ng o r th e dispos it ion of

the s ame. NO. 5-06-0349 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINO IS FIFTH DISTRICT

__________

___________

__________________________________________________ _ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal fr om the ) Circui t Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) U ni on Co un ty. ) v. ) No. 05-TR-2222 ) DAVID M. RUSHING , ) Honorab le ) Rodney A. Clutts, Defenda nt-Appellan t. ) Judge, pr esiding.

______________________________________________ ___________

______________

_ JUSTICE CHAPM AN delivere d the opin ion of th e court: The defendant, David M. Rushi ng, was convicte d by a

jury of reckle ss drivi

ng (625 ILCS 5/11-503 (West 2004)). The court sentenced the defendant to pay a $200 fine. A $20 "Violent Crime " fine was

also im posed. It appears that

the $20 fine wa s impos ed pursuant to se ctio n 10 of t he V iole nt C rime V ictims Assist ance Act (Act) ( 725 ILCS 24 0/10 (West 2004)). On appea l, the defend ant has f i led a motion for sum

mary relie f in which he contendsthat he should be given $15 cr edit toward h is fine for th e time he spent in presentence incarceration an d that the $2 0 fine sho uld be vacate d because it can be imposed only when no other

fine has bee n imposed. Th e State has filed a c onfession of error. T his court grants the motion for summ ary relief and vacates t

he $20 "Violent Crime" fine and aff irms as modi fied the judgm ent of the c ircuit

court to refle ct a $15 cr edit towa rd the defendant's $200 fine. The record

reveals that the

defendant wa s arre sted on the reckle ss drivi

ng charge on June 4, 2005, and posted a recognizance bond on June 6, 200 5; therefore, he spent three da ys in presentencing custody . See People v. Johns , 130 Ill. App. 3d 548, 549, 474 N.E.2d2

739 , 740 (1984). Section 110-14(a ) of the Code of Cr

imina l Procedur

e of 1963 provide s in pert inent part as fol lows: "Any

pers on inc arc era

ted on a bai labl e offens e who does not supplybail and against whom a fine is levied on conviction of such offense shall be allowed
acredit of $5 for each da

y s o incarc erate d upon applica tion of the defend ant." 725 ILCS 5/110-14(a) (West 2004). The defenda nt is entitled to cred it against his fin e even if the issue is raise d for the firsttime on appeal. See People v. Woo dard , 175 Ill. 2d 435, 457-58, 677 N.E. 2d 935, 945- 46 (1997). Thedefendant wa s fined purs uant to sect ion 5-9-1(a

)(2) of the Unified Code of Correct ions (730 ILCS 5/5-9-1(a)(2) (West 2004)). Having found previously in this order that the de fenda

nt served t

hree day s in pr

esentenc ing cu stody

, we no w f

ind that t he defendant is entitled to $15 credit toward his $200 fine. Section 10 (c) of the A ct provides: "(c) When any

person is convicte d in Illi

nois on or aft

er August 28, 1986, of
anoffense list e d below, or placed on supervision for such an offense on or after September

18, 1986, and no othe

r fine is impo sed, the f

ollowing pena

lty shall be collected by

the Circ uit Court Cl erk: (1) $25, fo r any crime of violence as def ined in su bs ection ( c) of Section 2 of t

he Crime Victi

ms Com pensati on Act; and (2) $20, fo r any other felony or mis d emea nor, excl uding any conservation offense. Such charge shall n ot be subj ect to the prov isions of Section 110- 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963." 725 ILCS 240 /10(c) (West 2004). Underthe plain language of the statute, the $20 fine may be orderedonly if "no other fin e is im posed." I n the cas e at bar , another fine was i

mposed; therefor

e, the $20 f

ine fo r "Violent Crime " is vac ated.3

Over time , the appe llate

court has address ed numer

ous appeals

where an i ssue is the applica tion of secti on 110-14 credi

t and the i ssue is

beingraised for the first time on appeal. See People v. O'Neill , 367 Ill. App. 3d 439, 440, 854 N.E. 2d 1154, 1156 (2006). "In most instances, the monetary

amount at

issue i s mini

mal, yet resol

ution of theappeal requ ires a disproportional expenditu re of state and judicial resou rces." O'Neill , 367 Ill. App. 3d at 440, 854 N.E.2d at 1156. In a signi ficant num ber of these appeals, secti on 110-14 credi t is the onlyissue raised on appeal. These matters could be handled at sente ncing. If the c our t imposes a fine, def

ense counsel should then ask for section 110-14 credit. Usually there will be a presentence investi gation that will state

the number of days

the defendant has been incarcerate dat thetime of the sentencin g hearing. If the prosecuto r disagrees with th e public defende r's o r the probatio n officer 's calculation, the co nflict can be h andled by the circuit court at that po int. For the foregoi

ng reasons, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed as

modifie d.

Affirme d as modi fied.

DONOVAN and WEXSTTEN, JJ., concur.