Court Opinion

ID: 9948812
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-07 22:04:41.21496+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:54.179426
License: Public Domain

NOTICE                2024 IL App (4th) 230446-U
 This Order was filed under
                                                                             FILED
                                                                            March 6, 2024
 Supreme Court Rule 23 and is    NOS. 4-23-0446, 4-23-0447 cons.
 not precedent except in the
                                                                            Carla Bender
 limited circumstances allowed
                                                                        4th District Appellate
                                  IN THE APPELLATE COURT                       Court, IL
 under Rule 23(e)(1).
                                           OF ILLINOIS

                                      FOURTH DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,                       )       Appeal from the
           Plaintiff-Appellee,                             )       Circuit Court of
           v.                                              )       Winnebago County
ADAM BLAZER,                                               )       Nos. 19CF350
           Defendant-Appellant.                            )            22CF26
                                                           )
                                                           )       Honorable
                                                           )       Debra D. Schafer,
                                                           )       Judge Presiding.

                JUSTICE LANNERD delivered the judgment of the court.
                Presiding Justice Cavanagh and Justice DeArmond concurred in the judgment.

                                             ORDER

¶1      Held: The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment denying defendant’s
              motion for additional sentencing credit.

¶2              In March and April 2023, defendant, Adam Blazer, filed motions requesting

additional sentencing credit under section 3-6-3(a)(4)(A) of the Unified Code of Corrections

(Unified Code) (730 ILCS 5/3-6-3(a)(4)(A) (West 2022)) for participating in correctional industry

assignments. Defendant sought sentencing credit in two separate cases. The trial court denied

defendant’s motions. In this consolidated appeal, defendant claims the court erred in denying him

additional sentencing credit. We affirm.

¶3                                     I. BACKGROUND

¶4              In July 2019, defendant was charged by indictment in Winnebago County case No.

19-CF-350 with two counts of aggravated battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3.05(f)(1) (West 2018)) and one
count of domestic battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3.2(a)(2) (West 2018)). In August 2019, defendant

pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated battery and was sentenced to 30 months of probation.

The remaining counts were dismissed. In January 2021, the State filed a petition to revoke

defendant’s probation.

¶5             In January 2022, defendant was charged in a separate criminal case, Winnebago

County case No. 22-CF-26, with one count each of aggravated battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3.3(a-5)

(West 2020)), domestic battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3.2(a)(1) (West 2020)), and criminal damage to

property (720 ILCS 5/21-1(a)(1) (West 2020)). In September 2022, defendant pleaded guilty to

domestic battery and the remaining counts were dismissed. He also admitted to violating his

probation in case No. 19-CF-350.

¶6             In November 2022, the trial court sentenced defendant to four years’ imprisonment

for domestic battery in case No. 22-CF-26 and a concurrent term of four years for aggravated

battery in case No. 19-CF-350. Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration of his sentences in

both cases, asserting they were excessive. At the hearing on the motions, defendant also requested

credit for his work as a tender in the county jail. On December 15, 2022, the court denied

defendant’s motion to reduce his sentences and his request for additional credit.

¶7             On March 3, 2023, defendant pro se filed a form “Motion to Receive Sentence

Credit for Program Participation” in case Nos. 22-CF-26 and 19-CF-350. The motion alleged

defendant was entitled to credit under section 3-6-3(a)(4)(A) of the Unified Code (730 ILCS

5/3-6-3(a)(4)(A) (West 2022)) for participating in and completing correctional industry

assignments. On April 17, 2023, defendant filed another pro se motion for sentencing credit in

both cases using the same form as his previous motion. He again sought credit under section

3-6-3(a)(4)(A) of the Unified Code for completion of correctional industry assignments. Defendant

                                               -2-
also filed corresponding “Motions for Order Nunc Pro Tunc,” asking for a correction of the

sentencing orders to reflect his credit for time served.

¶8             On May 11, 2023, the trial court entered a written order denying defendant’s

motions for sentencing credit, stating “inmates are not entitled to credit for ‘correctional industry

assignments’ while held in pretrial custody.” (Emphasis omitted.) The court also denied the

motions for a nunc pro tunc order.

¶9             On June 7, 2023, defendant filed amended notices of appeal from the denial of his

motions. On August 15, 2023, we granted defendant’s motion to consolidate the two appeals.

¶ 10           This appeal followed.

¶ 11                                       II. ANALYSIS

¶ 12                                       A. Jurisdiction

¶ 13           Initially, we must address our jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Although

defendant filed his pro se motions for sentencing credit after the time for filing posttrial motions

had expired, Illinois Supreme Court Rule 472(a) (eff. May 17, 2019) allows trial courts to retain

jurisdiction in criminal cases to correct specific sentencing errors, including “[e]rrors in the

calculation of presentence custody credit,” at any time following judgment. Defendant recognizes

his pro se motions seeking sentencing credit did not cite Rule 472, but he asks this court to treat

them as motions filed under the rule because he stated a claim for presentence custody credit. The

State does not object to defendant’s request to treat his motions as Rule 472 motions. We agree

defendant’s motions should be reviewed under Rule 472 because he asserted an error in the

calculation of presentence custody credit, a claim expressly authorized under Rule 472(a)(3). Thus,

the trial court retained jurisdiction to consider the claim raised in defendant’s motions under Rule

472.

                                                -3-
¶ 14           A trial court’s ruling on a Rule 472 motion to correct a sentencing error “constitutes

a final judgment on a justiciable matter and is subject to appeal in accordance with [Illinois]

Supreme Court Rule 303.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 472(b) (eff. May 17, 2019). Under Rule 303, a notice of

appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of the final judgment. Ill. S. Ct. R. 303(a)(1) (eff.

July 1, 2017). Defendant filed his notices of appeal within 30 days after the trial court denied his

motions for sentencing credit. Accordingly, this court has jurisdiction to consider defendant’s

appeal from the denial of his motions for sentencing credit.

¶ 15                                   B. Sentencing Credit

¶ 16           Defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his motions for additional

sentencing credit under section 3-6-3(a)(4)(A) of the Unified Code (730 ILCS 5/3-6-3(a)(4)(A)

(West 2022)). Further, defendant claims the statute allows inmates held in pretrial custody to

receive credit for completing correctional industry assignments.

¶ 17           This appeal presents an issue of statutory construction. The fundamental objective

of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature. People v.

Pearse, 2017 IL 121072, ¶ 41, 89 N.E.3d 322. The best evidence of legislative intent is the

language of the statute, given its plain and ordinary meaning. People v. Clark, 2018 IL 122495,

¶ 8, 129 N.E.3d 1124. If the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, courts must apply it as

written, without resorting to extrinsic aids of statutory construction. Id. We review issues of

statutory construction de novo. People v. Grant, 2016 IL 119162, ¶ 20, 52 N.E.3d 308.

¶ 18           Section 3-6-3(a)(4)(A) of the Unified Code provides, in relevant part, the following:

               “Except as provided in paragraph (4.7) of this subsection (a), the rules and

               regulations shall also provide that any prisoner who is engaged full-time in

               substance abuse programs, correctional industry assignments, educational

                                                -4-
               programs, work-release programs or activities in accordance with Article 13 of

               Chapter III of this Code, behavior modification programs, life skills courses, or re-

               entry planning provided by the Department [of Corrections (DOC)] under this

               paragraph (4) and satisfactorily completes the assigned program as determined by

               the standards of [DOC], shall receive one day of sentence credit for each day in

               which that prisoner is engaged in the activities described in this paragraph. The

               rules and regulations shall also provide that sentence credit may be provided to an

               inmate who was held in pre-trial detention prior to his or her current commitment

               to [DOC] and successfully completed a full-time, 60-day or longer substance abuse

               program, educational program, behavior modification program, life skills course,

               or re-entry planning provided by the county department of corrections or county

               jail. Calculation of this county program credit shall be done at sentencing as

               provided in Section 5-4.5-100 of this Code and shall be included in the sentencing

               order.” 730 ILCS 5/3-6-3(a)(4)(A) (West 2022).

¶ 19           Defendant argues he is eligible for additional sentencing credit under a plain

reading of section 3-6-3(a)(4)(A) because he was a “prisoner” when he completed the correctional

industry assignments in the county jail. Although the second part of the statute focuses specifically

on pretrial detainees, defendant maintains the first sentence, providing credit to “any prisoner” for

correctional industry assignments, is a general provision, which includes inmates in pretrial

detention. According to defendant, the legislature did not distinguish between “prisoners” and

“inmates” because those terms are used interchangeably in the statute. Defendant contends the

legislature intended to provide credit for work assignments to those in custody. In support of his

argument, defendant cites section 3-6-3(a)(4.2), which provides “up to 0.5 days” of credit for each

                                                -5-
day “any prisoner [has] engaged in self-improvement programs, volunteer work, or work

assignments that are not otherwise eligible activities under paragraph (4).” 730 ILCS 5/3-6-

3(a)(4.2) (West 2022).

¶ 20           The only issue raised in defendant’s motions is whether he is entitled to credit under

section 3-6-3(a)(4)(A). Under Rule 472, our review is limited to that issue. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 472(c)

(eff. May 17, 2019) (“When a post-judgment motion has been filed by a party pursuant to this rule,

any claim of error not raised in that motion shall be deemed forfeited.”).

¶ 21           This court recently construed section 3-6-3(a)(4)(A) in People v. Kelly, 2023 IL

App (4th) 220907-U. In pertinent part, this court held “[t]he first sentence of [section 3-6-

3(a)(4)(A)] applies to inmates who are in the custody of DOC. On the other hand, the second and

third sentences apply to inmates in pretrial detention in the custody of a county jail.” Id. ¶ 13.

Because the defendant sought additional credit for his time in pretrial detention, this court applied

the part of the statute applicable to inmates held in pretrial custody. Id. The trial court’s judgment

denying the defendant’s request for additional sentencing credit was affirmed because the

defendant failed to establish the requirements for receiving credit under the statutory language

applicable to inmates held in pretrial detention. Id. ¶¶ 14-15.

¶ 22           We find the analysis in Kelly persuasive. Section 3-6-3(a)(4)(A) unambiguously

distinguishes between prisoners in the custody of DOC and inmates held in pretrial detention and

provides different requirements for sentencing credit for those two categories. It is undisputed

defendant was an inmate held in pretrial detention when he worked as a tender in the county jail.

The plain language of section 3-6-3(a)(4)(A) provides credit to inmates held in pretrial detention

only for successful completion of “a full-time, 60-day or longer substance abuse program,

educational program, behavior modification program, life skills course, or re-entry planning

                                                -6-
provided by the county department of corrections or county jail.” 730 ILCS 5/3-6-3(a)(4)(A) (West

2022). The “county program credit” is calculated at sentencing and included in the sentencing

order. Id. The applicable portion of the statute does not provide additional sentencing credit for

completing correctional industry assignments in the county jail.

¶ 23           Additionally, even if he qualified as a “prisoner” within the meaning of the first

sentence of section 3-6-3(a)(4)(A), the program defendant seeks credit for would not qualify under

the plain language of the statute. Under the statute, a prisoner will receive credit for engaging in

correctional industry assignments “provided by [DOC],” if the prisoner satisfactorily completes

the program “as determined by the standards of [DOC].” 730 ILCS 5/3-6-3(a)(4)(A) (West 2022).

Defendant was an inmate in the custody of the county jail when he worked as a tender. He was not

sentenced to a term in DOC at that time.

¶ 24           In sum, we conclude defendant does not qualify for additional sentencing credit for

correctional industry assignments under the plain language of section 3-6-3(a)(4)(A). The trial

court did not err in denying defendant’s motions requesting additional credit as a result.

¶ 25                                   III. CONCLUSION

¶ 26           For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

¶ 27           Affirmed.

                                               -7-