Court Opinion

ID: 9742760
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:19:56.858982+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:36.489253
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE KASSERMAN, dissenting: I am unable to concur with the conclusion of the majority that the defendant is not entitled to credit against the $25 fine imposed under the Violent Crime Victims Assistance Act for the time she was incarcerated prior to her sentence; therefore, I respectfully dissent from that portion of the opinion. Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment on February 22, 1985, at which time the court imposed fines, costs and fees, which included a $25 fine payable to the Violent Crime Victims Assistance Fund. One of the issues raised by defendant in the instant appeal is that she should be entitled to credit against such $25 fine under the provisions of section 110 — 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 38, par. 110 — 14), which provides for credit of $5 per day against a fine for each day that a defendant is incarcerated prior to his conviction. As noted by the majority, this court determined in People v. James (1985), 133 Ill. App. 3d 623, 479 N.E.2d 344, that a defendant was entitled to the section 110 — 14 credit against fines imposed under the Violent Crime Victims Assistance Act. Section 10(b) of the Violent Crime Victims Assistance Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 70, par. 510(b)) was amended effective January 1, 1986. This amendment provides, in pertinent part, that “[w]hen any person is convicted in Illinois after January 1, 1984,” the court shall impose a fine “not subject to the provisions of Section 110 — 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963.” Relying upon In re Marriage of Semmler (1985), 107 Ill. 2d 130, 137, 481 N.E.2d 716, 719, the majority would disregard James and hold that it is proper to consider this amendment to the Violent Crime Victims Assistance Act as indicating an expression of legislative intent as to the original statute in spite of the fact that defendant was convicted and sentenced prior to its effective date. Although the amendment was obviously intended to be made applicable to situations comparable to the instant cause (defendant’s conviction after January 1, 1984), it is my conclusion that it is constitutionally impermissible in this regard in view of the fact that it violates the ex post facto provisions of the United States Constitution. U. S. Const., art. I, secs. 9,10. The defendant in the case at bar had pleaded guilty and been sentenced prior to the effective date of the amendment to the Violent Crime Victims Assistance Act. It is no more proper to deprive her of the credit to which she was entitled at the time of her sentencing under the decision of this court in People v. James (1985), 133 Ill. App. 3d 623, 479 N.E.2d 344, than it would be for this court to sanction a conviction for conduct that was not a criminal offense when it was performed. Although I concur with the decision of the majority in all other respects, for the foregoing reason I would grant the defendant credit against the fine to be paid under the Violent Crime Victims Assistance Act.