{ "id": 279549, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KISHA J.M. WATSON, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Watson", "decision_date": "2000-11-22", "docket_number": "No. 4-99-1034", "first_page": "140", "last_page": "144", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "318 Ill. App. 3d 140" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "630 N.E.2d 147", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "153" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "258 Ill. App. 3d 261", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2884051 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "270" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/258/0261-01" ] }, { "cite": "488 N.E.2d 614", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "616" }, { "page": "616" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "140 Ill. App. 3d 268", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3532273 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "272" }, { "page": "271-72" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/140/0268-01" ] }, { "cite": "590 N.E.2d 529", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "531" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "226 Ill. App. 3d 937", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5239382 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "939" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/226/0937-01" ] }, { "cite": "677 N.E.2d 935", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "945-46" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "175 Ill. 2d 435", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 295830 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "457" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/175/0435-01" ] }, { "cite": "669 N.E.2d 1351", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1355" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "283 Ill. App. 3d 599", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 182675 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "606" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/283/0599-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 517, "char_count": 10379, "ocr_confidence": 0.729, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.1423952249314385e-07, "percentile": 0.8621257455550497 }, "sha256": "3667f6b56c627b2d5fc906e94c17ded796706c2ed2b71c5a02be5bdd9ceaf9db", "simhash": "1:72eeb50e43bb2a67", "word_count": 1733 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:02:38.722215+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. KISHA J.M. WATSON, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE GARMAN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nIn November 1998, after defendant, Kisha Watson, pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated battery (720 ILCS 5/12 \u2014 4(b)(6) (West 1998)), the trial court sentenced her to 24 months\u2019 probation and 90 days\u2019 periodic imprisonment and ordered her to pay a $200 fine. The trial court stayed the periodic imprisonment but subsequently ordered defendant to serve it after a May 1999 hearing on the State\u2019s petition to issue an order directing her to commence serving her periodic imprisonment. In July 1999, the State filed a petition to revoke probation. The court found the allegations in the State\u2019s petition proved by a preponderance of the evidence and sentenced defendant to four years\u2019 imprisonment. On appeal, defendant argues that (1) the trial court erred when it ordered her to begin serving the 90 days\u2019 periodic imprisonment at a remission review hearing without counsel present; (2) the trial court exceeded the scope of the statutory scheme governing wage withholding orders when it ordered 50% of her monthly corrections income withheld and forwarded to the county clerk; and (3) she is entitled to a $320 credit against her fines pursuant to section 110 \u2014 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (Procedure Code) (725 ILCS 5/110 \u2014 14 (West 1998)). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand with directions.\nI. BACKGROUND\nOn September 25, 1998, Officer Jeff Grawe (Grawe) apprehended defendant after learning of an outstanding warrant for her arrest. After Grawe took defendant into custody, she cursed at him and attempted to kick out the driver\u2019s side window of his squad car. Grawe took defendant to the Adams County jail, where she spat on three police officers. Defendant was charged with one count of resisting a police officer (720 ILCS 5/31 \u2014 1 (West 1998)) and three counts of aggravated battery (720 ILCS 5/12 \u2014 4(b)(6) (West 1998)). Defendant remained in custody until October 8, 1998, when she posted $300 bond.\nDefendant pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated battery, and on February 11, 1999, the trial court sentenced her to 24 months\u2019 probation and 90 days\u2019 periodic imprisonment. The trial court stayed the written judgment of sentence on the periodic imprisonment pending \u201ccompliance,\u201d with remission reviews to be held every other month for the first nine months of her probation. Additionally, as conditions of her probation, the court ordered defendant, inter alia, not to consume alcohol, not to live in a place whose primary purpose is to serve alcohol or enter such an establishment, and to pay a $200 fine, a $20-per-month probation fee, and $10 to the local Crime Stoppers program.\nThe State subsequently filed a \u201cpetition to issue mittimus,\u201d alleging that defendant entered an establishment whose primary purpose is to serve alcohol in violation of the conditions of her probation. On May 13, 1999, defendant appeared in court without counsel and admitted the allegations in the State\u2019s petition. The court thereupon granted the petition and ordered defendant to begin serving the originally imposed 90 days\u2019 periodic imprisonment. Defendant was released from the Adams County jail on June 1, 1999, due to a medical condition.\nIn July 1999, the State filed a petition to revoke probation alleging that defendant was observed inside a tavern. Defendant was arrested on September 7, 1999, due to her failure to appear at her probation revocation hearing, and she remained in custody until October 6, 1999. The trial court revoked defendant\u2019s probation on September 30, 1999, and sentenced her on December 16, 1999, to four years\u2019 imprisonment with credit for 64 days served. In addition, the court ordered defendant\u2019s prior fines to continue and ordered the Department of Corrections (DOC) to withhold 50% of defendant\u2019s monthly corrections income and remit that amount to the Adams County circuit clerk for payment of \u201camounts due.\u201d This appeal followed.\nII. ANALYSIS\nDefendant first argues that the trial court denied her due process right to counsel at the May 13, 1999, hearing at which the court issued the order directing her to commence serving the 90-day periodic jail sentence. Defendant, however, did not appeal her original sentence, which included the probation, periodic jail sentence, a stay of that sentence, and the subsequent issuance of a written order directing her to begin serving the jail time. Defendant appeals now from the revocation of her probation, after which the trial court instituted a new sentence. See 730 ILCS 5/5 \u2014 6\u20144(e) (West 1998). The original sentence of February 11, 1999, was a final order and was appealable within 30 days of its entry under Illinois Supreme Court Rules 604(d) and 606(b) (145 Ill. 2d R. 604(b); 134 Ill. 2d R. 606(b)). Defendant forfeited this issue.\nDefendant next argues that the trial court exceeded the scope of the statutory scheme governing wage withholding orders when it ordered 50% of her monthly corrections income withheld and forwarded to the circuit clerk. The State argues that defendant waived any objection to this issue because she failed to file a posttrial motion. When a court enters an order that it lacks the inherent power to enter, the order is void and may be attacked at any time. Bank ofMatteson v. Brown, 283 Ill. App. 3d 599, 606, 669 N.E.2d 1351, 1355 (1996).\nWe have searched that part of the Unified Code of Corrections (Unified Code) (730 ILCS 5/5 \u2014 9\u20141 through 5 \u2014 9\u20144 (West 1998)) authorizing the imposition of a fine and have found no authority for trial courts to direct that DOC wages be withheld. Section 5 \u2014 9\u20144 of the Unified Code (730 ILCS 5/5 \u2014 9\u20144 (West 1998)) authorizes a court to enter a withholding order to collect the amount of a fine imposed on a defendant in accordance with part 8 of article XII of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/12 \u2014 801 through 12 \u2014 819 (West 1998)). The relevant sections of the Code of Civil Procedure do not authorize the withholding of DOC wages. Thus, the trial court exceeded its lawful statutory authority. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court\u2019s order.\nFinally, defendant contends that she should be credited with a reduction in her $200 fine due to the time she served in jail prior to her commitment to DOC on December 16,1999. She claims that she is entitled to a $5-per-day credit for 64 days. The State agrees that defendant is entitled to some credit, but disputes defendant\u2019s contention that she should be credited for 64 days. The State argues that defendant is only entitled to 14 days of credit.\nDefendant acknowledges that she did not request the credit at the time of her sentencing and is requesting it for the first time on appeal. The State concedes that defendant may apply for the credit for the first time on appeal. The Supreme Court of Illinois in People v. Woodard, 175 Ill. 2d 435, 457, 677 N.E.2d 935, 945-46 (1997), held that the per diem, credit of section 110\u201414 is conferred in mandatory terms subject to defendant\u2019s application for it. Therefore, the \u201cnormal rules\u201d of waiver do not apply.\nThe court first imposed a $200 fine when it sentenced defendant to probation and periodic imprisonment on February 11, 1999. In sentencing on revocation of defendant\u2019s probation, the court ordered the $200 fine to continue. Section 110 \u2014 14 of the Procedure Code provides in relevant part:\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. However, in no case shall the amount so allowed or credited exceed the amount of the fine.\u201d 725 ILCS 5/110 \u2014 14 (West 1998).\nDefendant is entitled to $5 per diem credit against her fine for the time spent incarcerated from September 25, 1998, to October 8, 1998, because, during this time, she was incarcerated on a bailable offense. Defendant was also incarcerated from May 13, 1999, through June 1, 1999, after the court issued the commitment order directing defendant to begin serving her previous sentence of 90 days\u2019 periodic imprisonment. Defendant is not, however, entitled to credit for this time since it was served as an incident of probation rather than incarceration on a bailable offense as required by section 110\u201414 of the Procedure Code. See People v. Keck, 226 Ill. App. 3d 937, 939, 590 N.E.2d 529, 531 (1992); People v. Leggans, 140 Ill. App. 3d 268, 272, 488 N.E.2d 614, 616 (1986). Finally, defendant is entitled to credit for time served from September 7, 1999, to October 6, 1999. At this time, defendant was incarcerated due to her failure to appear for a probation revocation hearing. Sentencing upon revocation of probation is sentencing upon a conviction and is within the purview of section 110\u201414 of the Procedure Code. Leggans, 140 Ill. App. 3d at 271-72, 488 N.E.2d at 616. Upon revocation of defendant\u2019s probation, the court ordered the $200 fine to continue. As such, defendant is entitled to credit for any time served up until the sentence and fine are imposed. See People v. Smith, 258 Ill. App. 3d 261, 270, 630 N.E.2d 147, 153 (1994). Defendant should have received credit for 44 days served for a total of $220. However, section 110\u201414 of the Procedure Code provides that the credit shall not exceed the amount of the fine. Accordingly, defendant is entitled to a full credit against her $200 fine.\nIII. CONCLUSION\nFor the foregoing reasons, we affirm defendant\u2019s conviction and sentence, vacate the trial court\u2019s order withholding 50% of defendant\u2019s monthly corrections income, and remand to the trial court for the purpose of amending the written order of judgment and sentence to reflect that defendant\u2019s fine has been satisfied.\nAffirmed in part and vacated in part; cause remanded with directions.\nSTEIGMANN, PJ., and MYERSCOUGH, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE GARMAN" } ], "attorneys": [ "Daniel D. Yuhas and Susan M. Wilham, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.", "Barney S. Bier, State\u2019s Attorney, of Quincy (Norbert J. Goetten, Robert J. Biderman, and Jeffrey K. Davison, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KISHA J.M. WATSON, Defendant-Appellant.\nFourth District\nNo. 4\u201499\u20141034\nOpinion filed November 22, 2000.\nRehearing denied February 2, 2001.\nDaniel D. Yuhas and Susan M. Wilham, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.\nBarney S. Bier, State\u2019s Attorney, of Quincy (Norbert J. Goetten, Robert J. Biderman, and Jeffrey K. Davison, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0140-01", "first_page_order": 160, "last_page_order": 164 }