No. 3--04--0336 

_________________________________________________________________ 

Filed March 24, 2006. 

IN THE 

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS 

THIRD DISTRICT 

A.D., 2006 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE ) Appeal from the Circuit Court 

OF ILLINOIS, ) of the 9th Judicial Circuit, 

 ) McDonough County, Illinois, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

 ) 

v. ) No. 03--CF--15 

 ) 

STEVEN D. HASKINS, ) Honorable 

 ) William D. Henderson, 

Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding. _________________________________________________________________ 

JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE delivered the Opinion of the court: _________________________________________________________________ 

The defendant, Steven D. Haskins, was found guilty of 

burglary (720 ILCS 5/19--1(a) (West 2000)). The trial court 

sentenced him to 20 years of imprisonment and payment of $11,320 

in restitution. Among other things, the sentencing order 

authorized the Department of Corrections (DOC) to withhold a 

portion of the defendant's wages toward payment of the 

restitution. On appeal, the defendant argues that there is a 

split of authority concerning whether a trial court is authorized 

to order the DOC to withhold wages to pay restitution, and that 

this court has not decided the issue. We note, however, that in 

People v. Gathing, 334 Ill. App. 3d 617, 778 N.E.2d 215 (2002), 

we previously decided that a trial court is authorized to order 

the DOC to withhold wages to pay a fine. The defendant has not 

distinguished between withholding to pay a fine and withholding 
2 

to pay restitution, and we see no reason to draw such a 

distinction. Therefore, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND 

The trial court's written sentencing order states the 

following: 

"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the [DOC] is ordered 

to withhold [a portion of the defendant's wages] and 

remit that amount to the clerk of the Circuit Court of 

McDonough County, Illinois for the applications to 

amounts due in this case. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant shall pay 

restitution of $11,320.00, court costs and penalties; 

defendant shall contact the State's Attorney's 

Collection Specialist within 30 days of release from 

the [DOC] and enter into a payment agreement." 

The defendant filed a motion for summary order with this 

court, in which he argued that the withholding portion of the 

sentencing order should be vacated. The State submitted an 

objection to the motion for summary order, arguing that the 

withholding portion of the sentencing order referred to both a 

fine and restitution, and that the defendant's wages could 

lawfully be withheld for both. 

In the defendant's response to the State's objection, he 

acknowledged that the restitution statute authorizes a trial 

judge to "enter an order of withholding to collect the amount of 

restitution owed in accordance with Part 8 of Article XII of the 
3 

Code of Civil Procedure" (730 ILCS 5/5--5--6(h) (West 2004)). 

However, the defendant submitted that there was a split of 

authority within the Illinois Appellate Court concerning whether 

DOC wages should be withheld to pay restitution and fines. See 

People v. Mancilla, 331 Ill. App. 3d 35, 770 N.E.2d 1262 (2d 

Dist. 2002) (DOC wages may be withheld); People v. Watson, 318 

Ill. App. 3d 140, 743 N.E.2d 147 (4th Dist. 2000) (DOC wages may 

not be withheld). The defendant contended that this court had 

not decided the issue. The defendant reiterated that the 

withholding order should be vacated, or alternatively, that it 

should apply only to restitution. 

On November 15, 2005, this court issued an order to the 

trial court asking it to clarify its sentencing order while we 

retained jurisdiction over the matter. On December 22, 2005, the 

trial court entered an order clarifying the original sentencing 

order. The trial court said that (1) fines were not imposed 

against the defendant; (2) pursuant to this court's order, the 

portion of the sentencing order that applied to withholding to 

pay unspecified court costs and penalties was vacated; and (3) 

the withholding portion of the order applied only to $11,320 in 

restitution. Additionally, the trial court stated that the 

restitution was to be paid first by withholding the defendant's 

DOC wages during his incarceration, and then, upon his release 

from incarceration, by entering into a payment agreement to pay 

any unpaid restitution. 
4 

ANALYSIS 

The defendant argues that there is a split of authority 

concerning whether the trial court was authorized to order the 

DOC to withhold his wages to pay the restitution, and that this 

court has not decided the issue. 

In Gathing, 334 Ill. App. 3d 617, 778 N.E.2d 215, the 

defendant argued, among other things, that the trial court lacked 

authority to order the DOC to withhold his wages to pay a fine. 

In response, we said the following: 

"Section 5--9--4 of the Unified Code of Corrections 

(730 ILCS 5/5--9--4 (West 2000)) allows a court to 

enter an order of withholding to collect the amount of 

a fine imposed on an offender. Consequently, the trial 

court had authority to order the defendant's income 

withheld to pay the mandatory drug assessment." 

Gathing, 334 Ill. App. 3d at 620-21, 778 N.E.2d at 217-

18. 

Similarly to section 5--9--4, the Unified Code of 

Corrections also allows a court to enter an order of withholding 

to collect restitution. See 730 ILCS 5/5--5--6(h) (West 2004). 

Although our ruling in Gathing did not concern the withholding of 

DOC wages to collect restitution, but instead concerned the 

withholding of such wages to pay a fine, we see no reason not to 

apply the holding of Gathing to the withholding of DOC wages for 

the payment of restitution. Moreover, in his response, the 

defendant did not distinguish between withholding for restitution 
5 

and withholding for a fine. Therefore, in the instant case, we 

hold that the trial court did not err by ordering the DOC to 

withhold the defendant's wages toward payment of restitution. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the sentencing order of 

the McDonough County circuit court, as previously modified and 

clarified by that court. 

Affirmed. 

SLATER and O=BRIEN, JJ., concur.