People v. Prince

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 5th District Appellate » 2007 » People v. Prince

People v. Prince

State: Illinois

Court: 5th District Appellate

Docket No: 5-05-0683 Rel

Case Date: 03/02/2007

Preview:NO. 5-05-0683
NOTICE Decision filed 03/02/07. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Peti tion for Rehearing or th e

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIFTH DISTRICT ________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Shelby County. ) v. ) No. 04-CF-96 ) SCOTT MICHAEL PRINCE, ) Honorable ) Michael P. Kiley, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding. ________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE SPOM ER delivered the opinion of the court: The defendant, Scott Michael Prince, asks this court to grant him credit for time spent in custody prior to his sentencing, against the $200 in fines that accompanied his sentences following pleas of guilty to two counts of predatory criminal sexual assault. The defendant does not raise any other issues regarding his convictions and sentences. For the following reasons, we grant the defendant the requested credit and otherwise affirm his convictions and sentences. On November 10, 2004, the defendant entered open pleas of guilty to two counts of predatory criminal sexual assault. On March 18, 2005, the defendant was sentenced to 12 years' and 8 years' imprisonment, to be served consecutively. He was also ordered to pay a $100 sexual assault fine and a $100 domestic violence fine. Although the defendant was granted sentencing credit for 264 days spent in presentencing custody, he was not granted credit against his fines. The defendant now asks this court to grant him credit against his fines for the time spent in presentencing custody. In support of his position, the defendant points to section

disposition of the same.

1

110-14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963, which at the time of his offense stated as follows: "Any person incarcerated on a bailable offense who does not supply bail and against whom a fine is levied on conviction of such offense shall be allowed a credit of $5 for each day so incarcerated upon application of the defendant. However, in no case shall the amount so allowed or credited exceed the amount of the fine." 725 ILCS 5/110-14 (West 2002). The defendant, citing People v. Woodard , 175 Ill. 2d 435, 457 (1997), notes as well that his request for the $5-per-day credit is not subject to waiver and that he may request his credit for the first time on appeal. The State does not contest the defendant's assertion that the credit is not subject to waiver, but the State notes instead that section 110-14 was amended, effective January 1, 2005, to include language stating that the credit described above "does not apply to a person incarcerated for sexual assault" as that offense is defined in the Unified Code of Corrections (730 ILCS 5/5-9-1.7(a)(1) (West 2004)). 725 ILCS 5/110-14(b) (West 2004). The State posits that because the defendant was sentenced, and his fines imposed, subsequent to January 1, 2005, he is not entitled to any monetary credit against his fines. The defendant replies to the State's argument by pointing out that although he was sentenced, and his fines were imposed, after January 1, 2005, his offense took place in 2004, prior to the amendment. Accordingly, the defendant contends, the denial of credit against his fines pursuant to the amendment would violate the federal and state prohibitions against ex post facto laws. We agree with the defendant. The United States Constitution prohibits both the Congress (U.S. Const., art. I,

Download People v. Prince.pdf