Court Opinion

ID: 9745847
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 13:36:04.483574+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:05.292383
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE POPE, dissenting: I respectfully dissent in this case. Defendant seeks credit for 26 days he spent in jail in case No. 08 — CF—120 against the sentences imposed in case Nos. 07 — CF—1997 and 07 — CF—2145. During these 26 days, defendant was not in custody in either case No. 07 — CF— 1997 or case No. 07 — CF—2145. The charge in case No. 08 — CF—120 (aggravated criminal sexual abuse) is not related in any way to the charges in case No. 07 — CF—1997 (theft) or case No. 07 — CF—2145 (unlawful possession of a controlled substance). Defendant relies on section 5 — 8—7(c) of the Unified Code (730 ILCS 5/5 — 8—7(c) (West 2006)) to argue he is entitled to credit for time served in custody in case No. 08 — CF—120 because the offense in that case was committed prior to the offenses to which he pleaded guilty. I conclude defendant and the majority have misread section 5 — 8—7(c) of the Unified Code, which, given the language in this in-artfully drafted subsection, is understandable. In the case sub judice, the language, “[a]n offender arrested on one charge,” in section 5 — 8—7(c) of the Unified Code (730 ILCS 5/5 — 8—7(c) (West 2006)) refers to the theft and possession charges, because those arrests occurred first in time. The language, “and prosecuted on another charge” (730 ILCS 5/5 — 8—7(c) (West 2006)), refers to the criminal-sexual-abuse charge filed subsequent to the original charges. The statute then provides for credit against the sentence imposed in the subsequent charge (in our case, the criminal-sexual-abuse charge) for time spent in custody on the original charges (in our case, the theft and possession charges) that has not been credited against another sentence, so long as the conduct in the subsequent charge occurred prior to the arrest on the first charge(s). In our case, the subsequent charge (the criminal-sexual-abuse charge) was dismissed, and defendant was prosecuted on the original charges (the theft and possession charges). Therefore, section 5 — 8— 7(c) is inapplicable. This interpretation of the statute is supported by the Council Commentary, which states “[s]ubparagraph (c) provides for the case, not covered under former law, where all confinement since arrest is credited against the sentence even if the original charge is dropped in favor of a new charge which results in conviction and imprisonment.” 730 ILCS Ann. 5/5 — 8—7, Council Commentary— 1973, at 226 (Smith-Hurd 2007). Here, the original charges were not dropped, and they were totally unrelated to the sex-abuse charge. Further, our supreme court, in People v. Robinson, 172 Ill. 2d 452, 460-61, 667 N.E.2d 1305, 1309 (1996), stated: “Section 5 — 8—7(c) was adopted to ‘prevent the State from dropping an initial charge and recharging a defendant with another crime, with the intent of denying credit for time spent in jail on the first charge.’ [Citations.] Because the initial charge against defendant was not dropped in favor of a subsequent charge, section 5 — 8—7(c) is not directly applicable to the case at bar.” (Emphasis added.) Our decision in Revell is inapposite. In Revell, the defendant was first arrested in case No. 03 — CF—580 on April 2, 2003, for aggravated criminal sexual abuse. Revell, 372 Ill. App. 3d at 982, 868 N.E.2d at 320. Later, in January 2004, he was indicted in case No. 03 — CF— 2156 for predatory criminal sexual assault of a child. Revell, 372 Ill. App. 3d at 983, 868 N.E.2d at 320. The victim was the same person in both of these cases. Revell, 372 Ill. App. 3d at 983, 868 N.E.2d at 320. The conduct in the case filed second occurred prior to the arrest in the first filed case. Revell, 372 Ill. App. 3d at 993, 868 N.E.2d at 328. The initial case, case No. 03 — CF—580, was dismissed when the defendant pled guilty to the subsequently filed charge in case No. 03 — CF—2156. Revell, 372 Ill. App. 3d at 993, 868 N.E.2d at 328. Under these circumstances, credit for time spent in custody in case No. 03 — CF— 580 was properly awarded in case No. 03 — CF—2156. For the reasons stated above, I would deny defendant credit for the 26 days he spent in custody in case No. 08 — CF—120.