{ "id": 3528478, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MAURICE JAMES, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. James", "decision_date": "1985-04-04", "docket_number": "No. 5\u201484\u20140279", "first_page": "623", "last_page": "626", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "133 Ill. App. 3d 623" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "442 N.E.2d 136", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "139" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "92 Ill. 2d 248", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3098641 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "255-56" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/92/0248-01" ] }, { "cite": "373 So. 2d 874", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So. 2d", "case_ids": [ 9620077 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "880" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/so2d/373/0874-01" ] }, { "cite": "466 N.E.2d 296", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "299" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "125 Ill. App. 3d 516", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3632157 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "519" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/125/0516-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 329, "char_count": 5230, "ocr_confidence": 0.787, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.7620546815404796e-07, "percentile": 0.7101904396742822 }, "sha256": "63d98ccaea3c09c33a06b435932f32e5e52a00133646282ac5e1a3594b1eddfc", "simhash": "1:89aa7c4c4c05eba0", "word_count": 886 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:42:49.711724+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MAURICE JAMES, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE KASSERMAN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant, Maurice James, was charged by information with the offense of aggravated kidnaping (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 38, par. 10 \u2014 2). Defendant was incarcerated for 118 days on this charge prior to pleading guilty and being sentenced to a 10-year term of imprisonment. In addition to the imprisonment, defendant was ordered to pay $25 to the Violent Crime Victims Assistance Fund, as provided in section 10 of the Violent Crime Victims Assistance Act (Ill. Rev. Stat., 1984 Supp., ch. 70, par. 510). Pursuant to section 110 \u2014 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 38, par. 110 \u2014 14), defendant applied for credit against this fine on account of his incarceration. The circuit court of Jefferson County refused to allow the credit, and defendant has perfected this appeal, in which he raises the sole issue of whether he is entitled to credit against the payment to the Violent Crime Victims Assistance Fund for the time he was incarcerated prior to pleading guilty.\nSection 10 of the Violent Crime Victims Assistance Act (Ill. Rev. Stat., 1984 Supp., ch. 70, par. 510) provides:\n\u201c(a) The \u2018Violent Crime Victims Assistance Fund\u2019 is created as a special fund in the State Treasury to provide monies for the grants to be awarded under this Act.\n(b) When any person is convicted in Illinois after January 1, 1984, of an offense listed below, the court which enters the conviction shall impose, in addition to any other penalty authorized by law, a fine in accordance with the following schedule:\n(1) $25.00, for conviction of a crime of violence, as defined in Section 2(c) of the \u2018Crime Victims Compensation Act,\u2019 approved August 23, 1973, as amended; ***.\u201d\nDefendant contends that the payment exacted by section 10 of the Violent Crime Victims Assistance Act constitutes a fine against which he is entitled to a credit by virtue of section 110 \u2014 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963. Section 110 \u2014 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 38, par. 110 \u2014 14) provides:\n\u201cAny 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. The clerk of the court shall notify the defendant in writing of this provision of the Act at the time he is convicted. However, in no case shall the amount so allowed or credited exceed the amount of the fine.\u201d\nThe State urges that section 110 \u2014 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 is not applicable to reduce \u201cfines\u201d imposed under section 510 of the Violent Crime Victims Assistance Act because such sanctions are not fines in the traditional sense, in that a \u201cfine\u201d imposed under section 510 does not constitute a sum of money exacted as a pecuniary punishment. Further, the State contends that to accept the defendant\u2019s argument would frustrate the legislative intent to aid the victims of crime.\nSection 110 \u2014 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 expressly applies to any person against whom a fine is levied and makes no attempt to differentiate among fines based upon statutory origin. (People v. Stevens (1984), 125 Ill. App. 3d 516, 519, 466 N.E.2d 296, 299.) Furthermore, section 510 of the Violent Crime Victims Assistance Act does not provide that the payment it imposes is excluded from the provisions of section 110 \u2014 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963.\nBlack\u2019s Law Dictionary 569 (5th ed. 1979) defines a fine as \u201cA pecuniary punishment imposed by lawful tribunal upon person convicted of crime or misdemeanor. A pecuniary penalty.\u201d The payment required by section 510 of the Violent Crime Victims Assistance Act is in fact referred to in the statute itself as a \u201cfine\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat., 1984 Supp., ch. 70, par. 510(b)), and it is imposed only when any person is convicted. Similar payments have elsewhere been held to be fines. See State v. Champe (Fla. 1978), 373 So. 2d 874, 880.\nLegislative intent is to be derived primarily from consideration of the statutory language. The language of the statute should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. (People v. Brown (1982), 92 Ill. 2d 248, 255-56, 442 N.E.2d 136, 139.) The General Assembly characterized the payment to the Violent Crime Victims Assistance Fund as a fine. In the face of this language, we construe the payment to be a fine against which defendant is entitled to a credit by virtue of section 110 \u2014 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963.\nAccordingly, we modify defendant\u2019s sentence to reflect a credit of $25 against the $25 fine, since defendant served more than five days of incarceration.\nAffirmed as modified.\nHARRISON and KARNS, JJ, concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE KASSERMAN" } ], "attorneys": [ "Randy E. Blue and John R. Abel, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Mt. Vernon, for appellant.", "Kathleen M. Ailing, State\u2019s Attorney, of Mt. Vernon (Kenneth R. Boyle and Stephen E. Norris, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MAURICE JAMES, Defendant-Appellant.\nFifth District\nNo. 5\u201484\u20140279\nOpinion filed April 4, 1985.\nRandy E. Blue and John R. Abel, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Mt. Vernon, for appellant.\nKathleen M. Ailing, State\u2019s Attorney, of Mt. Vernon (Kenneth R. Boyle and Stephen E. Norris, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0623-01", "first_page_order": 645, "last_page_order": 648 }