{
  "id": 256356,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAVID W. SCOTT, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Scott",
  "decision_date": "2001-09-21",
  "docket_number": "Nos. 4 \u2014 00\u20140436, 4 \u2014 00\u20140888 cons",
  "first_page": "641",
  "last_page": "643",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "324 Ill. App. 3d 641"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "747 N.E.2d 26",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "34",
          "parenthetical": "reaffirming our decision in Watson"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "743 N.E.2d 147",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "149"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "318 Ill. App. 3d 140",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        279549
      ],
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "142-43"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/318/0140-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "747 N.E.2d 26",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "34"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "743 N.E.2d 147",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "149"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "318 Ill. App. 3d 140",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        279549
      ],
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "142-43"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/318/0140-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 370,
    "char_count": 5207,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.762,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.298132930532853e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3316685644607079
    },
    "sha256": "17ea4a95ad265f94ad8ab2fd0cdc54443d38d6586e4705c73b45cc0a735a93e7",
    "simhash": "1:bae4fcfd33209c38",
    "word_count": 872
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:56:29.143572+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. DAVID W. SCOTT, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE STEIGMANN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nIn February 2000, a jury found defendant, David W Scott, guilty of delivery of a controlled substance (720 ILCS 570/401(d) (West 1998)). In April 2000, the trial court sentenced him to 7V2 years in prison and ordered him to pay various fines and costs totaling $1,200. After crediting defendant $5 per day for the 180 days he spent in presentencing incarceration, $300 remained unpaid. The court thus ordered the Department of Corrections (DOC) to withhold 50% of defendant\u2019s DOC wages and remit those funds to the Adams County circuit clerk to be applied toward the amounts due in fines and costs.\nDefendant appeals, arguing only that the trial court lacked the authority to order that his DOC wages be withheld and remitted to the circuit clerk. The State concedes that the court lacked the authority to enter such an order, and we accept the State\u2019s concession.\nIn People v. Watson, 318 Ill. App. 3d 140, 142-43, 743 N.E.2d 147, 149 (2000), this court held that no authority exists for a trial court to direct that DOC withhold wages earned while a defendant is imprisoned. See also People v. Williamson, 319 Il. App. 3d 891, 900, 747 N.E.2d 26, 34 (2001) (reaffirming our decision in Watson). We adhere to Watson and Williamson.\nAccordingly, we affirm defendant\u2019s conviction and sentence, vacate that portion of the trial court\u2019s sentencing order directing DOC to withhold 50% of defendant\u2019s DOC wages, and remand with directions to modify the written judgment of sentence as stated.\nAffirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded with directions.\nKNECHT, J., concurs.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE STEIGMANN"
      },
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE MYERSCOUGH,\nspecially concurring in part and dissenting in part:\nI concur with the majority in affirming the conviction and sentence; however, I respectfully dissent in part. I do not agree that the trial court acted beyond its authority in ordering withholding.\nI have previously agreed that the trial court has no authority 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 \u2014 00\u20140501 (April 16, 2001) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). Upon further reflection, I conclude that the trial court does have that authority. The Unified Code of Corrections authorizes use of wage-deduction orders to collect fines.\n\u201cOrder of Withholding. The court may enter an order of withholding to collect the amount of a fine imposed on an offender in accordance with [p]art 8 of [a]rtide XII of the Code of Civil Procedure.\u201d 730 ILCS 5/5 \u2014 9\u20144 (West 2000).\nThe fines must be collected as provided in section 12 \u2014 801 of the Code of Civil Procedure:\n\u201c\u00a7 12 \u2014 801. Definitions. As used in [p]art 8 of [ajrticle XII of this [a]ct:\n\u2018Deduction order\u2019 means an order entered pursuant to [s]ection 12 \u2014 811 of this [a]ct.\n\u2018Employer\u2019 means the person named as employer in the affidavit filed under [selection 12 \u2014 805.\n\u2018Federal agency employer\u2019 means an agency of the federal government as defined in 5 [U.S.C. \u00a7 ]5520a(a)(l), as amended from time to time.\n\u2018Judgment creditor\u2019 means the recipient of any judgment, except a judgment by confession which has not been confirmed as provided in [p]art 8 of [a]rticle XII of this [a]ct.\n\u2018Judgment debtor\u2019 means a person against whom a judgment has been obtained.\n\u2018Wages\u2019 means any hourly pay, salaries, commissions, bonuses, or other compensation owed by an employer to a judgment debtor.\u201d 735 ILCS 5/12 \u2014 801 (West 2000).\nDOC wages are wages. DOC is the inmates\u2019 employer. Inmates\u2019 wages are also subject to child support withholding orders, civil judgments, and court orders to pay filing fees for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.\nWhy should the victims, the State, and the police agencies be shortchanged when the money is available for collection and, further, only 15% of the wages can be withheld? However, I do note that in this case, the court ordered 50% of the DOC wages withheld. This is contrary to the wage-deduction statute, which limits deduction, in essence, to a maximum of 15% of wages if the withholding procedure is complied with. Moreover, it also appears from the record the withholding procedure set forth in the wage-deduction statute was not followed here.\nWe should, therefore, remand for compliance with the withholding procedures set forth in the Code of Civil Procedure. We should allow the trial court to issue withholding orders but only for the statutory amount up to 15%, not the 50% ordered in this case, if withheld in compliance with the wage-deduction statute. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent in part.",
        "type": "concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part",
        "author": "JUSTICE MYERSCOUGH,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Daniel D. Yuhas and Judith L. Libby, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.",
      "Barney S. Bier, State\u2019s Attorney, of Quincy (Norbert J. Goetten and Robert J. Biderman, both 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. DAVID W. SCOTT, Defendant-Appellant.\nFourth District\nNos. 4 \u2014 00\u20140436, 4 \u2014 00\u20140888 cons.\nOpinion filed September 21, 2001.\nMYERSCOUGH, J., specially concurring in part and dissenting in part.\nDaniel D. Yuhas and Judith L. Libby, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.\nBarney S. Bier, State\u2019s Attorney, of Quincy (Norbert J. Goetten and Robert J. Biderman, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0641-01",
  "first_page_order": 659,
  "last_page_order": 661
}