Court Opinion

ID: 9714086
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:30:10.598567+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:23.206725
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. In People v. Robinson, 172 Ill. 2d 452 (1996), our supreme court held that the plain language of section 5 — 8—7(b) requires that a defendant receive credit against each sentence imposed for an offense for which he was in custody where he was simultaneously in custody on more than one offense. Robinson, 172 Ill. 2d at 462-63. Here, there is no indication in the record that defendant was not simultaneously in custody for each of the offenses for which he received consecutive sentences. Therefore, under Robinson, he is entitled to a separate credit against each of those sentences. People v. Johnson, 286 Ill. App. 3d 597, 601 (1997), appeal denied, No. 83027 (June 4, 1997). I am not convinced by the majority’s analysis that the controlling authority in Robinson does not apply to this situation. I would, therefore, affirm the trial court, and I dissent on that basis.