September 21, 2001

PRESIDING JUSTICE STEIGMANN delivered the opinion ofthe court:

In February 2000, a jury found defendant, David W.Scott, guilty of delivery of a controlled substance (720 ILCS570/401(d) (West 1998)). In April 2000, the trial court sentenced him to 7 1/2 years in prison and ordered him to payvarious fines and costs totaling $1,200. After crediting defendant $5 per day for the 180 days he spent in presentencingincarceration, $300 remained unpaid. The court thus ordered theDepartment of Corrections (DOC) to withhold 50% of defendant'sDOC wages and remit those funds to the Adams County circuit clerkto be applied toward the amounts due in fines and costs.

Defendant appeals, arguing only that the trial courtlacked the authority to order that his DOC wages be withheld andremitted to the circuit clerk. The State concedes that the courtlacked the authority to enter such an order, and we accept theState's concession.

In People v. Watson, 318 Ill. App. 3d 140, 142-43, 743N.E.2d 147, 149 (2000), this court held that no authority existsfor a trial court to direct that DOC withhold wages earned whilea defendant is imprisoned. See also People v. Williamson, 319Ill. App. 3d 891, 900, 747 N.E.2d 26, 34 (2001) (reaffirming ourdecision in Watson). We adhere to Watson and Williamson.

Accordingly, we affirm defendant's conviction andsentence, vacate that portion of the trial court's sentencingorder directing DOC to withhold 50% of defendant's DOC wages, andremand with directions to modify the written judgment of sentenceas stated.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded withdirections.

KNECHT, J., concurs.

MYERSCOUGH, J., specially concurs in part and dissentsin part.

JUSTICE MYERSCOUGH, specially concurring in part anddissenting in part:

I concur with the majority in affirming the convictionand sentence; however, I respectfully dissent in part. I do notagree that the trial court acted beyond its authority in orderingwithholding.

I have previously agreed that the trial court has noauthority to enter deduction orders on DOC wages to pay fines. Williamson, 319 Ill. App. 3d at 900, 747 N.E.2d at 34; Watson,318 Ill. App. 3d at 142-43, 743 N.E.2d at 149; People v. Mallory,No. 4-00-0501 (April 16, 200l) (unpublished order under SupremeCourt Rule 23). Upon further reflection, I conclude that thetrial court does have that authority. The Unified Code ofCorrections authorizes use of wage-deduction orders to collectfines.

"Order of Withholding. The court mayenter an order of withholding to collect theamount of a fine imposed on an offender inaccordance with [p]art 8 of [a]rticle XII ofthe Code of Civil Procedure." 730 ILCS 5/5-9-4 (West 2000).

The fines must be collected as provided in section 12-801 of theCode of Civil Procedure:

"