{
  "id": 3464538,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NAT KING COLE, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Cole",
  "decision_date": "1987-05-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 5-86-0516",
  "first_page": "171",
  "last_page": "172",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "155 Ill. App. 3d 171"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "153 Ill. App. 3d 10",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3609071
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "14"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/153/0010-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 246,
    "char_count": 4059,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.757,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.621887471290392e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2897182422604561
    },
    "sha256": "1e3367ac5fbdc871dbaff2dd40fb3c5305dafc438f9331d4f5ddf60b71e0534b",
    "simhash": "1:490258ddebe26ba3",
    "word_count": 710
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:57:39.933265+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. NAT KING COLE, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE WELCH\ndelivered the opinion of the court;\nThe defendant, Nat King Cole, was convicted of unlawful delivery of a controlled substance, less than 10 grams of cocaine, in violation of section 401(c) of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 56V2, par. 1401(c)) by a jury in the circuit court of Jackson County. Defendant was sentenced to probation for a period of 24 months. As incidents of that probation, defendant was ordered to serve home confinement for 90 days when he was not working, to pay a fine of $350 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 1005 \u2014 9\u20141), and to pay a fine of $200, the street value of the controlled substance (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 1005 \u2014 9\u20141.1). The court granted defendant $10 credit against his section 5 \u2014 9\u20141 fine for the two days defendant was incarcerated on the unlawful-delivery charge pursuant to section 110 \u2014 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 110 \u2014 14).\nOn appeal, defendant\u2019s only contention is that he is also entitled to $10 credit against his section 5 \u2014 9\u20141.1 fine based on the same dates, May 7 and May 8, 1985, he was incarcerated for which he received credit against his section 5 \u2014 9\u20141 fine. This court finds that the issue raised in the case at bar is similar to the issue raised in People v. Atteberry (1987), 153 Ill. App. 3d 10, and the reasoning in that decision is applicable to the issue raised by defendant in the case at bar.\nIn Atteberry, defendant was convicted of burglary and was sentenced to probation. As incidents of probation, defendant was sentenced to pay a $500 fine (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 1005 \u2014 9\u20141) and to pay a $20 fine to the Violent Crime Victims Assistance Fund (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 70, par. 510). On appeal, Atteberry contended that he was entitled to $15 credit against both his section 5 \u2014 9\u20141 fine and his Violent Crime Victims Assistance Act fine by reason of his incarceration from June 5 through June 7, 1984. This court found that defendant was entitled to $15 credit only against his section 5 \u2014 9\u20141 fine. This court reasoned:\n\u201cDefendant is not entitled to $15 credit as he has been credited for the June 5 through June 7, 1984, period against the fine imposed pursuant to section 5 \u2014 9\u20141 of the Unified Code of Corrections (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 1005 \u2014 9\u20141). Section 110 \u2014 14 states, in relevant part, \u2018Any person *** against whom a fine is levied on conviction of such offense shall be allowed a credit of $5 for each day so incarcerated ***.\u2019 The statute does not provide that one credit should be granted against all fines. The fines imposed pursuant to the Unified Code of Corrections are separate and distinct from the fines imposed pursuant to the Violent Crime Victims Assistance Act.\u201d People v. Atteberry (1987), 153 Ill. App. 3d 10, 14.\nThe fines imposed pursuant to sections 5 \u2014 9\u20141 and 5 \u2014 9\u20141.1 are separate and distinct, as the legislature specifically provided in section 5 \u2014 9\u20141.1 that upon conviction for certain offenses, \u201cin addition to any other penalty imposed, a fine shall be levied by the court at not less than the full street value of the cannabis or controlled substances seized.\u201d (Emphasis added.) Therefore, this court concludes that defendant is not entitled to $10 credit against both his section 5 \u2014 9\u20141 fine and his 5 \u2014 9\u20141.1 fine for the same two days defendant was incarcerated prior to being released on a $3,000 recognizance bond.\nFor the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Jackson County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nEARNS, P.J., and HARRISON, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE WELCH"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Daniel M. Kirwan and Rita K. Peterson, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Mt. Vernon, for appellant.",
      "\u2022 John R. Clemons, State\u2019s Attorney, of Murphysboro (Kenneth R. Boyle and Stephen E. Norris, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NAT KING COLE, Defendant-Appellant.\nFifth District\nNo. 5-86-0516\nOpinion filed May 5, 1987.\nDaniel M. Kirwan and Rita K. Peterson, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Mt. Vernon, for appellant.\n\u2022 John R. Clemons, State\u2019s Attorney, of Murphysboro (Kenneth R. Boyle and Stephen E. Norris, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0171-01",
  "first_page_order": 193,
  "last_page_order": 194
}