{ "id": 4269590, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAVID M. RUSHING, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Rushing", "decision_date": "2007-04-06", "docket_number": "No. 5\u201406\u20140349", "first_page": "712", "last_page": "714", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "372 Ill. App. 3d 712" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "854 N.E.2d 1154", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1156" }, { "page": "1156" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "367 Ill. App. 3d 439", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4266319 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "440" }, { "page": "440" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/367/0439-01" ] }, { "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": "457-58" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/175/0435-01" ] }, { "cite": "474 N.E.2d 739", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "740" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "130 Ill. App. 3d 548", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3494547 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "549" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/130/0548-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 314, "char_count": 4550, "ocr_confidence": 0.768, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.1430952152036663 }, "sha256": "ee17b0b96a7e9bc48399fe1a30c9e0e082b9db1f468685ee189405f53025a6a2", "simhash": "1:8a26746f72cfee85", "word_count": 788 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:46:01.247775+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 M. RUSHING, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE CHAPMAN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe defendant, David M. Rushing, was convicted by a jury of reckless driving (625 ILCS 5/11\u2014503 (West 2004)). The court sentenced the defendant to pay a $200 fine. A $20 \u201cViolent Crime\u201d fine was also imposed. It appears that the $20 fine was imposed pursuant to section 10 of the Violent Crime Victims Assistance Act (Act) (725 ILCS 240/10 (West 2004)). On appeal, the defendant has filed a motion for summary relief in which he contends that he should be given $15 credit toward his fine for the time he spent in presentence incarceration and that the $20 fine should be vacated because it can be imposed only when no other fine has been imposed. The State has filed a confession of error. This court grants the motion for summary relief and vacates the $20 \u201cViolent Crime\u201d fine and affirms as modified the judgment of the circuit court to reflect a $15 credit toward the defendant\u2019s $200 fine.\nThe record reveals that the defendant was arrested on the reckless\ndriving charge on June 4, 2005, and posted a recognizance bond on June 6, 2005; therefore, he spent three days in presentencing custody. See People v. Johns, 130 Ill. App. 3d 548, 549, 474 N.E.2d 739, 740 (1984). Section 110\u201414(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 provides in pertinent part as follows: \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.\u201d 725 ILCS 5/110\u201414(a) (West 2004).\nThe defendant is entitled to credit against his fine even if the issue is raised for the first time on appeal. See People v. Woodard, 175 Ill. 2d 435, 457-58, 677 N.E.2d 935, 945-46 (1997). The defendant was fined pursuant to section 5\u20149\u20141(a)(2) of the Unified Code of Corrections (730 ILCS 5/5\u20149\u20141(a)(2) (West 2004)). Having found previously in this order that the defendant served three days in presentencing custody, we now find that the defendant is entitled to $15 credit toward his $200 fine.\nSection 10(c) of the Act provides:\n\u201c(c) When any person is convicted in Illinois on or after August 28, 1986, of an offense listed below, or placed on supervision for such an offense on or after September 18, 1986, and no other fine is imposed, the following penalty shall be collected by the Circuit Court Clerk:\n(1) $25, for any crime of violence as defined in subsection (c) of Section 2 of the Crime Victims Compensation Act; and\n(2) $20, for any other felony or misdemeanor, excluding any conservation offense.\nSuch charge shall not be subject to the provisions of Section 110\u201414 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963.\u201d 725 ILCS 240/10(c) (West 2004).\nUnder the plain language of the statute, the $20 fine may be ordered only if \u201cno other fine is imposed.\u201d In the case at bar, another fine was imposed; therefore, the $20 fine for \u201cViolent Crime\u201d is vacated.\nOver time, the appellate court has addressed numerous' appeals where an issue is the application of section 110\u201414 credit and the issue is being raised for the first time on appeal. See People v. O\u2019Neill, 367 Ill. App. 3d 439, 440, 854 N.E.2d 1154, 1156 (2006). \u201cIn most instances, the monetary amount at issue is minimal, yet resolution of the appeal requires a disproportional expenditure of state and judicial resources.\u201d O\u2019Neill, 367 Ill. App. 3d at 440, 854 N.E.2d at 1156. In a significant number of these appeals, section 110\u201414 credit is the only issue raised on appeal. These matters could be handled at sentencing. If the court imposes a fine, defense counsel should then ask for section 110\u201414 credit. Usually there will be a presentence investigation that will state the number of days the defendant has been incarcerated at the time of the sentencing hearing. If the prosecutor disagrees with the public defender\u2019s or the probation officer\u2019s calculation, the conflict can be handled by the circuit court at that point.\nFor the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed as modified.\nAffirmed as modified.\nDONOVAN and WEXSTTEN, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE CHAPMAN" } ], "attorneys": [ "Daniel M. Kirwan, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Mt. Vernon, for appellant.", "Allen James, State\u2019s Attorney, of Jonesboro (Stephen E. Norris and T. David Purcell, 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 M. RUSHING, Defendant-Appellant.\nFifth District\nNo. 5\u201406\u20140349\nOpinion filed April 6, 2007.\nDaniel M. Kirwan, of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Mt. Vernon, for appellant.\nAllen James, State\u2019s Attorney, of Jonesboro (Stephen E. Norris and T. David Purcell, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0712-01", "first_page_order": 728, "last_page_order": 730 }