{
  "id": 1209196,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOE L. MANCILLA, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Mancilla",
  "decision_date": "2002-06-11",
  "docket_number": "No. 2\u201401\u20140067",
  "first_page": "35",
  "last_page": "40",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "331 Ill. App. 3d 35"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "324 Ill. App. 3d 641",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        256356
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "641-42"
        },
        {
          "page": "642-43",
          "parenthetical": "Myerscough, J., specially concurring in part and dissenting in part"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/324/0641-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "316 Ill. App. 3d 354",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        1096575
      ],
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "366"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/316/0354-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "318 Ill. App. 3d 1155",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        279570
      ],
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1157",
          "parenthetical": "same"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/318/1155-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "198 Ill. 2d 364",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        29941
      ],
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "371"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/198/0364-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "192 Ill. 2d 36",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        453249
      ],
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "42"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/192/0036-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "197 Ill. 2d 88",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        259033
      ],
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "90"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/197/0088-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "327 Ill. App. 3d 1106",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        79354
      ],
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1115"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/327/1106-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "319 Ill. App. 3d 891",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        1527697
      ],
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "900"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/319/0891-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "326 Ill. App. 3d 414",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        1281378
      ],
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "426"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/326/0414-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "318 Ill. App. 3d 140",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        279549
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "143"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/318/0140-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "319 Ill. App. 3d 572",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        1527724
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "578"
        },
        {
          "page": "578-79"
        },
        {
          "page": "578",
          "parenthetical": "50% withholding order"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/319/0572-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "168 Ill. 2d 107",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        307263
      ],
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "113"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/168/0107-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "325 Ill. App. 3d 13",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        570790
      ],
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "17"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/325/0013-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 520,
    "char_count": 8927,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.75,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3503244502674704e-07,
      "percentile": 0.633227844557733
    },
    "sha256": "b89929f180b2ff29ffab475f56309f672d1caf57f79d242113e14e7168ee34f6",
    "simhash": "1:a2764d404bc9daeb",
    "word_count": 1486
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:37:46.779771+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. JOE L. MANCILLA, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE GEOMETER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant, Joe L. Mancilla, entered a blind guilty plea to the unlawful possession, with the intent to deliver, of more than 1 but less than 15 grams of a substance containing cocaine (720 ILCS 570/ 401(c)(2) (West 1998)). The trial court sentenced defendant to five years\u2019 imprisonment and imposed, among other things, a $1,450 fine and a $7,000 street-value fine. To facilitate the payment of the fines, the court ordered the Department of Corrections (DOC) to withhold 25% of defendant\u2019s monthly corrections income and remit that amount to the circuit court clerk. On appeal, defendant argues that (1) the withholding order is void because no statute allows it and (2) he is entitled to a $15 credit against his fines for the three days he spent in jail before sentencing. We vacate the withholding order and modify the judgment to reflect a $15 credit against the fines.\nThe State argues that defendant has waived his challenge to the withholding order because he did not raise it in the trial court. Ordinarily, a sentencing issue not raised during the sentencing hearing or in a postsentencing motion is waived. People v. Watkins, 325 Ill. App. 3d 13, 17 (2001). Here, however, defendant challenges the trial court\u2019s statutory authority to enter the withholding order. A sentencing order that does not conform to statutory requirements is void and may be attacked at any time. People v. Arna, 168 Ill. 2d 107, 113 (1995); People v. Davis, 319 Ill. App. 3d 572, 578 (2001). Therefore, we will address defendant\u2019s contention.\nDefendant claims that there is no statute that authorizes a withholding order directed against DOC wages. Although we agree that the withholding order must be vacated, we do so for a different reason.\nSection 5 \u2014 9\u20144 of the Unified Code of Corrections (Corrections Code) provides that \u201c[t]he court may enter an order of withholding to collect the amount of a fine imposed on an offender in accordance with Part 8 of Article XII of the Code of Civil Procedure [735 ILCS 5/12\u2014 801 et seq. (West 2000)].\u201d 730 ILCS 5/5 \u2014 9\u20144 (West 2000). Defendant relies on the Fourth District\u2019s decision in People v. Watson, 318 Ill. App. 3d 140 (2000). There, the court held that \u201c[t]he relevant sections of the Code of Civil Procedure do not authorize the withholding of DOC wages.\u201d Watson, 318 Ill. App. 3d at 143. The Fourth District followed Watson in People v. Calvert, 326 Ill. App. 3d 414, 426 (2001), People v. Scott, 324 Ill. App. 3d 641, 641-42 (2001), and People v. Williamson, 319 Ill. App. 3d 891, 900 (2001). The Fifth District has followed Watson. People v. Torres, 327 Ill. App. 3d 1106, 1115 (2002).\n\u20223 We disagree with Watson and the decisions following it. A review of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Corrections Code leads us to conclude that the legislature did not intend to exclude DOC wages from withholding orders. When construing a statute, a court\u2019s primary objective is to ascertain and give effect to the legislature\u2019s intent. People v. O\u2019Brien, 197 Ill. 2d 88, 90 (2001). Our inquiry always must begin with the language of the statute, which is the most reliable indicator of legislative intent. People v. Pullen, 192 Ill. 2d 36, 42 (2000). Where a statute is unambiguous, a court must give it effect as written without reading into it exceptions, limitations, or conditions that the legislature did not express. People v. Rivera, 198 Ill. 2d 364, 371 (2001).\nArticle XII, Part 8, of the Code of Civil Procedure governs the procedure by which a judgment creditor may obtain a wage deduction order against a judgment debtor\u2019s employer. Section 12 \u2014 801 defines \u201cwages\u201d as \u201cany 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). Although the relevant Code of Civil Procedure provisions do not mention DOC wages, the Corrections Code contemplates an employment situation, and the DOC wages are compensation for work performed.\nChapter III, Article 12, of the Corrections Code governs correctional employment programs. Section 3 \u2014 12\u20141 provides that the DOC \u201cshall, in so far as possible, employ at useful work committed persons confined in institutions and facilities of the [DOC], who are over the age of compulsory school attendance, physically capable of such employment, and not otherwise occupied in programs of the Department.\u201d 730 ILCS 5/3 \u2014 12\u20141 (West 2000). Section 3 \u2014 12\u20142(a) prescribes the types of employment the DOC may establish. 730 ILCS 5/3 \u2014 12\u20142(a) (West 2000).\nSection 3 \u2014 12\u20145 establishes the compensation for such work:\n\u201cPersons performing a work assignment under subsection (a) of Section 3 \u2014 12\u20142 may receive wages under rules and regulations of the [DOC]. *** Of the compensation earned pursuant to this Section, a portion, as determined by the [DOC], shall be used to offset the cost of the committed person\u2019s incarceration. *** All other wages shall be deposited in the individual\u2019s account under rules and regulations of the [DOC].\u201d 730 ILCS 5/3 \u2014 12\u20145 (West 2000).\nWe see nothing in the relevant statutory schemes indicating that the legislature intended to exclude DOC wages from the scope of section 5 \u2014 9\u20144 of the Corrections Code. The legislature has established the types of income exempt from deduction orders, and DOC wages are not included. See 735 ILCS 5/12 \u2014 804 (West 2000). The Corrections Code contemplates an employment situation and the payment of wages as defined in section 12 \u2014 801 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We note that the author of Williamson has reconsidered her position and now believes that DOC wages fall within section 12\u2014 801\u2019s definition of \u201cwages.\u201d Scott, 324 Ill. App. 3d at 642-43 (Myerscough, J., specially concurring in part and dissenting in part). For these reasons, we reject defendant\u2019s argument.\nAlthough we have concluded that section 5 \u2014 9\u20144 applies to DOC wages, we nevertheless must vacate the withholding order here because the statutory procedure for obtaining such an order was not followed. The Code of Civil Procedure provides for the issuance of a summons against the employer (735 ILCS 5/12 \u2014 805 (West 2000)), the consideration of offsetting and adverse claims (735 ILCS 5/12 \u2014 809, 810 (West 2000)), and a trial conducted as in other civil cases (735 ILCS 5/12 \u2014 811(c) (West 2000)). Here, there was no procedure that resulted in the withholding order. The issue was not even discussed during the sentencing hearing, and it appears that the withholding order merely was a part of a standard sentencing form.\nWe acknowledge that DOC wages present a unique situation. For example, the judgment creditor and the employer are the same entity. Nevertheless, absent the parties\u2019 agreement on the issue, compliance with the statutory procedure is required to ensure that all claims against a defendant\u2019s wages receive due consideration. Because no wage deduction proceeding under the Code of Civil Procedure was conducted here, the withholding order was void. Davis, 319 Ill. App. 3d at 578-79.\nAn additional problem here is that the amount of the withholding, 25% of defendant\u2019s DOC wages, appears to exceed the amount authorized under section 12 \u2014 803 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That provision states that the maximum wages subject to collection are the lesser of (1) 15% of the debtor\u2019s gross weekly wages or (2) the amount by which the disposable earnings for a week exceed 45 times the federal minimum hourly wage. 735 ILCS 5/12 \u2014 803 (West 2000). Thus, it appears that the 25% withholding order exceeds the permitted amount. See Davis, 319 Ill. App. 3d at 578 (50% withholding order); People v. Despenza, 318 Ill. App. 3d 1155, 1157 (2001) (same).\nDefendant\u2019s second contention on appeal is that he is entitled to a $15 credit against his fines because he spent three days in jail before sentencing. The State agrees. The record reveals that defendant was arrested on March 12, 1998, and posted bond on March 14. Defendant is entitled to a $5 credit against his fines for each day he was incarcerated before sentencing. 725 ILCS 5/110 \u2014 14 (West 2000); People v. Gonzalez, 316 Ill. App. 3d 354, 366 (2000).\nFor the foregoing reasons, we affirm defendant\u2019s conviction and prison sentence but vacate the withholding order and modify the judgment of the circuit court of Ogle County to reflect a $15 credit against defendant\u2019s fines.\nAffirmed in part as modified; vacated in part.\nMcLAREN and BOWMAN, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE GEOMETER"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "G. Joseph Weller and Steven E. Wiltgen, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Elgin, for appellant.",
      "Douglas E Floski, State\u2019s Attorney, of Oregon (Martin E Moltz and Peggy F.J. Bradford, 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. JOE L. MANCILLA, Defendant-Appellant.\nSecond District\nNo. 2\u201401\u20140067\nOpinion filed June 11, 2002.\nG. Joseph Weller and Steven E. Wiltgen, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Elgin, for appellant.\nDouglas E Floski, State\u2019s Attorney, of Oregon (Martin E Moltz and Peggy F.J. Bradford, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0035-01",
  "first_page_order": 53,
  "last_page_order": 58
}