{
  "id": 1281431,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILLIAM T. JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Jackson",
  "decision_date": "2002-01-16",
  "docket_number": "No. 4-00-0325",
  "first_page": "1087",
  "last_page": "1089",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "326 Ill. App. 3d 1087"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "450 N.E.2d 910",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "913"
        },
        {
          "page": "913"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "115 Ill. App. 3d 717",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3556776
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "720"
        },
        {
          "page": "721"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/115/0717-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "604 N.E.2d 1107",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1108"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "237 Ill. App. 3d 561",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5161753
      ],
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "562"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/237/0561-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 306,
    "char_count": 4792,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.814,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.04834432432161103
    },
    "sha256": "197e4b20712dd2d2f7779d3cfc105ba10af1066b62e81747551ed1832170321d",
    "simhash": "1:1222550c6264bf94",
    "word_count": 773
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:10:13.053989+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. WILLIAM T. JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE KNECHT\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nAfter a jury trial in the circuit court of Champaign County, the defendant William Jackson was found guilty of unlawful possession of cannabis with intent to deliver and sentenced to five years\u2019 imprisonment. Defendant was also held in contempt at his arraignment in this case and sentenced to six months\u2019 incarceration to be served consecutively to any sentence imposed on the possession charge. Defendant appeals, contending the trial court erred by ordering the contempt sentence to be served consecutively to the sentence for possession. We affirm.\nI. BACKGROUND\nAt defendant\u2019s arraignment on the possession charge, he responded to the court\u2019s request to take a seat with a rude gesture. The trial judge responded by increasing bond, which prompted defendant to reply with a series of insulting and profane remarks. Defendant was immediately held in direct criminal contempt and sentenced to six months\u2019 incarceration. The trial judge said, \u201cIt [the sentence] will be served consecutive to any sentence you may receive in this matter.\u201d\nDefendant was thereafter convicted of the possession charge and his posttrial motions were denied. At sentencing on the possession charge, the trial court noted defendant had served 126 days in custody prior to trial. The court then gave defendant day-for-day good-time credit against his contempt sentence and concluded the contempt sentence had been served. The court then determined 36 days of credit remained, which should be allocated as sentencing credit on the five-year prison sentence imposed on the possession charge.\nII. ANALYSIS\nDefendant contends the trial court could not order the sentence for contempt to be served consecutively to a sentence not yet imposed, and the misdemeanor sentence for contempt must be merged in and run concurrently with the felony possession sentence.\nDefendant correctly states the two general principles above, i.e., a sentence in one case should not be made consecutive to a not-yet-imposed sentence in an unrelated case (People v. Reed, 237 Ill. App. 3d 561, 562, 604 N.E.2d 1107, 1108 (1992)); and when an offender is serving a sentence for a misdemeanor, and is then sentenced to prison for a felony, the misdemeanor sentence merges and runs concurrently with the felony sentence (730 ILCS 5/5 \u2014 8\u20144(d) (West 2000)).\nNeither of these two general principles applies in this case. This is not a consecutive sentence, nor is it a misdemeanor sentence that merges. It is a sentence-credit issue. In People v. Brents, 115 Ill. App. 3d 717, 450 N.E.2d 910 (1983), a defendant convicted of armed robbery had engaged in unruly behavior at his preliminary hearing and was sentenced to six months\u2019 incarceration for the contempt. He was in custody at the same time on the armed robbery.\nAt sentencing for the armed robbery conviction, the trial court refused to grant credit for a four-month period of jail time elapsing between the contempt and the sentence imposed for armed robbery.\nThe Brents court stated the question in this way: \u201cThe question before us, then, is whether jail time served concurrently as a result of the charged offense and a subsequent criminal contempt sentence need be credited towards the sentence imposed on the first offense. We think not.\u201d Brents, 115 Ill. App. 3d at 720, 450 N.E.2d at 913. We agree.\nSection 5 \u2014 8\u20147(b) of the Unified Code of Corrections (730 ILCS 5/5 \u2014 8\u20147(b) (West 2000)) provides credit for time spent in custody as a result of the offense for which the sentence was imposed. In our view, the contempt sentence was not a result of the armed robbery; it was the result of defendant\u2019s disrespectful behavior. Nothing in the statute or case law requires the trial court to credit the defendant with the jail time served because of his contempt. \u201cTo hold otherwise would greatly diminish a defendant\u2019s incentive to comply with the trial court\u2019s order respecting proper decorum in the courtroom and render the contempt citation itself meaningless and inoperative.\u201d Brents, 115 Ill. App. 3d at 721, 450 N.E.2d at 913.\nThe trial judge had discretion in these circumstances to determine whether the incarceration for contempt should be credited toward the five-year sentence. He concluded it should not. We affirm.\nAffirmed.\nMcCULLOUGH, EJ., and MYERSCOUGH, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE KNECHT"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Daniel D. Yuhas and Susan M. Wilham, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.",
      "John C. Piland, State\u2019s Attorney, of Urbana (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. WILLIAM T. JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.\nFourth District\nNo. 4 \u2014 00\u20140325\nOpinion filed January 16, 2002.\nDaniel D. Yuhas and Susan M. Wilham, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.\nJohn C. Piland, State\u2019s Attorney, of Urbana (Norbert J. Goetten and Robert J. Biderman, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "1087-01",
  "first_page_order": 1105,
  "last_page_order": 1107
}