{ "id": 4269862, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. YANNI P. KARMATZIS, a/k/a John P. Karmatzis, Defendant-Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Karmatzis", "decision_date": "2007-06-05", "docket_number": "No. 4-04-0802", "first_page": "714", "last_page": "719", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "373 Ill. App. 3d 714" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "707 N.E.2d 97", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "107" }, { "page": "107" }, { "page": "107" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "302 Ill. App. 3d 438", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 1352853 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "453" }, { "page": "453" }, { "page": "453" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/302/0438-01" ] }, { "cite": "798 N.E.2d 1268", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1277" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "343 Ill. App. 3d 998", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3719778 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1010" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/343/0998-01" ] }, { "cite": "854 N.E.2d 787", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "790" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "367 Ill. App. 3d 259", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4266276 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "262" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/367/0259-01" ] }, { "cite": "815 N.E.2d 1209", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1211" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "352 Ill. App. 3d 291", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5454520 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "294" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/352/0291-01" ] }, { "cite": "700 N.E.2d 1039", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1042", "parenthetical": "discussing section 5-8-4(h)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "183 Ill. 2d 261", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 209970 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "266-67", "parenthetical": "discussing section 5-8-4(h)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/183/0261-01" ] }, { "cite": "658 N.E.2d 445", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "448" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "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": "756 N.E.2d 474", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "478" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "324 Ill. App. 3d 649", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 256322 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "653" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/324/0649-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 496, "char_count": 11744, "ocr_confidence": 0.688, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.5307352334220474e-08, "percentile": 0.34889138324280683 }, "sha256": "9a1a7554312e07c2f4d38e6ee6581135de6a8622c308866605b4739c40888e59", "simhash": "1:785c04946448aca4", "word_count": 2080 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:22:18.400209+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. YANNI P. KARMATZIS, a/k/a John P. Karmatzis, Defendant-Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE STEIGMANN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nIn March 2004, defendant, Yanni E Karmatzis, a/k/a John E Kar-matzis, pleaded guilty to burglary (720 ILCS 5/19 \u2014 1(a) (West 2002)) (Macon County case No. 03 \u2014 CF\u20141469). Later in March 2004, the State charged defendant with burglary (Macon County case No. 04\u2014 CF \u2014 362), and the trial court set an $80,000 bond. In April 2004, the State charged defendant with burglary and forgery (720 ILCS 5/19\u2014 1(a), 17 \u2014 3(a)(2) (West 2004)) (Macon County case No. 04 \u2014 CF\u2014378), and the court set a $50,000 bond. In April 2004, defendant was arraigned in case Nos. 04 \u2014 CF\u2014362 and 04 \u2014 CF\u2014378, and the court ordered him returned to the Department of Corrections (DOC). On May 6, 2004, DOC mistakenly released defendant from prison. On June 8, 2004, defendant was returned to custody.\nIn August 2004, defendant pleaded guilty to burglary in case Nos. 04 \u2014 CF\u2014362 and 04 \u2014 CF\u2014378 and in three other cases. He also pleaded guilty to three counts of burglary (based on incidents that took place on May 13, 2004 (Macon County case No. 04 \u2014 CF\u2014697), May 23, 2004 (Macon County case No. 04 \u2014 CF\u2014659), and June 1, 2004 (Macon County case No. 04 \u2014 CF\u2014667)). The trial court later sentenced defendant to three years in prison in case No. 03 \u2014 CF\u2014 1469 and six years in prison for each burglary conviction. The court ordered that the six-year prison terms be served concurrently to each other and consecutively to the three-year prison term.\nThe State appeals, arguing that the concurrent sentences imposed in case Nos. 04 \u2014 CF\u2014697, 04 \u2014 CF\u2014659, and 04 \u2014 CF\u2014667 are void under section 5 \u2014 8\u20144(h) of the Unified Code of Corrections (730 ILCS 5/5 \u2014 8\u20144(h) (West 2004)), which required that because those offenses were committed while defendant was on \u201cpretrial release\u201d for the offenses in case Nos. 04 \u2014 CF\u2014362 and 04 \u2014 CF\u2014378, the sentences imposed thereon should be served consecutively to the sentences imposed in case Nos. 04 \u2014 CF\u2014362 and 04 \u2014 CF\u2014378. We agree and thus vacate the concurrent sentences imposed in case Nos. 04 \u2014 CF\u2014 697, 04 \u2014 CF\u2014659, and 04 \u2014 CF\u2014667 and remand with directions to amend the sentencing order to reflect that the six-year prison terms in those three cases are to be served consecutively to the sentences imposed in Nos. 04 \u2014 CF\u2014362 and 04 \u2014 CF\u2014378.\nI. BACKGROUND\nAs earlier stated, in March 2004, defendant pleaded guilty to burglary (720 ILCS 5/19 \u2014 1(a) (West 2002)) in case No. 03 \u2014 CF\u2014 1469. The trial court then set the case for a June 2004 sentencing hearing and released defendant on a $50,000 recognizance bond while he awaited sentencing. Later in March 2004, the State charged defendant with committing burglary in case No. 04 \u2014 CF\u2014362, and the trial court set an $80,000 bond. In April 2004, the State charged defendant with committing burglary and forgery in case No. 04 \u2014 CF\u2014 378, and the court set a $50,000 bond.\nIn April 2004, defendant was arraigned in case Nos. 04 \u2014 CF\u2014362 and 04 \u2014 CF\u2014378, and the court ordered him returned to DOC to serve time for a parole violation in another case. Defendant did not post bond in either case No. 04 \u2014 CF\u2014362 or 04 \u2014 CF\u2014378. However, on May 6, 2004, DOC mistakenly released him from prison, instead of returning him to jail. On June 8, 2004, authorities again took defendant into custody.\nIn June 2004, the State charged defendant with two counts of burglary and one count of forgery based on a May 23, 2004, incident (case No. 04 \u2014 CF\u2014659). That same month, the State charged him with two counts of burglary and one count of forgery based on a June 1, 2004, incident (case No. 04 \u2014 CF\u2014667). Later in June 2004, the State charged defendant with burglary and two counts of forgery based on a May 13, 2004, incident (case No. 04 \u2014 CF\u2014647).\nIn August 2004, defendant pleaded guilty to burglary in case Nos. 04 \u2014 CF\u2014362 and 04 \u2014 CF\u2014378, and in exchange, the trial court dismissed the forgery charge. He also pleaded guilty to three counts of burglary in case Nos. 04 \u2014 CF\u2014697, 04 \u2014 CF\u2014659, and 04 \u2014 CF\u2014667. In exchange, the court dismissed the forgery charges. Defendant also pleaded guilty to three other burglary charges (Macon County case Nos. 04 \u2014 CF\u2014675, 04 \u2014 CF\u2014676, and 04 \u2014 CF\u2014698). The record shows that the burglary in case No. 04 \u2014 CF\u2014698 was committed in March 2004. However, the record is unclear as to when the burglaries in case Nos. 04 \u2014 CF\u2014675 and 04 \u2014 CF\u2014676 were committed. (The indictment and factual basis in case No. 04 \u2014 CF\u2014675 indicate that the offense took place on March 27, 2004; however, the check at issue was dated May 27, 2004. The indictment and factual basis in case No. 04 \u2014 CF\u2014676 indicate that the offense took place on March 13, 2004; however, the check at issue was dated May 13, 2004.)\nIn September 2004, the trial court sentenced defendant to three years in prison in case No. 03 \u2014 CF\u20141469 and six years in prison for each burglary conviction. The court ordered that the six-year prison terms be served concurrently to each other and consecutively to the three-year prison term.\nThis appeal followed.\nII. THE TRIAL COURT\u2019S IMPOSITION OF CONCURRENT SENTENCES IN CASE NOS. 04 \u2014 CF\u2014697, 04 \u2014 CF\u2014659, AND 04 \u2014 CF\u2014667\nThe State argues that the concurrent sentences imposed in case Nos. 04 \u2014 CF\u2014697, 04 \u2014 CF\u2014659, and 04 \u2014 CF\u2014667 are void under section 5 \u2014 8\u20144(h) of the Code (730 ILCS 5/5 \u2014 8\u20144(h) (West 2004)). Specifically, the State contends that section 5 \u2014 8\u20144(h) required that because those offenses were committed while defendant was on \u201cpretrial release\u201d for the offenses in case Nos. 04 \u2014 CF\u2014362 and 04\u2014 CF \u2014 378, the sentences thereon should be served consecutively to the sentences imposed in case Nos. 04 \u2014 CF\u2014362 and 04 \u2014 CF\u2014378. We agree.\n\u201cA sentence that does not conform to a statutory requirement is void and may be corrected at any time.\u201d People v. Pippen, 324 Ill. App. 3d 649, 653, 756 N.E.2d 474, 478 (2001). When a trial court\u2019s decision to impose concurrent prison terms is deemed void, the appellate court has the authority to correct the sentence, and the appellate court\u2019s doing so is not barred by supreme court rules limiting the State\u2019s right to appeal or prohibiting the appellate court from increasing a defendant\u2019s sentence. People v. Arna, 168 Ill. 2d 107, 113, 658 N.E.2d 445, 448 (1995).\nSection 5 \u2014 8\u20144(h) of the Code provides as follows:\n\u201cIf a person charged with a felony commits a separate felony while on pre[ Jtrial release or in pretrial detention in a county jail facility or county detention facility, the sentences imposed upon conviction of these felonies shall be served consecutively regardless of the order in which the judgments of conviction are entered.\u201d (Emphasis added.) 730 ILCS 5/5 \u2014 8\u20144(h) (West 2004).\nThus, section 5 \u2014 8\u20144(h) mandates consecutive sentences when a defendant commits another offense while on \u201cpretrial release\u201d for the original offense. See People v. Clark, 183 Ill. 2d 261, 266-67, 700 N.E.2d 1039, 1042 (1998) (discussing section 5\u20148\u20144(h)).\n\u20222 Resolution of the issue here requires us to interpret the phrase \u201cpretrial release\u201d as it is used in section 5\u20148\u20144(h) of the Code. Statutory interpretation constitutes a matter of law subject to de novo review. People v. Bradley M., 352 Ill. App. 3d 291, 294, 815 N.E.2d 1209, 1211 (2004). When construing a statute, we must give effect to the legislature\u2019s intent. Calibraro v. Board of Trustees of Buffalo Grove Firefighters\u2019 Pension Fund, 367 Ill. App. 3d 259, 262, 854 N.E.2d 787, 790 (2006). \u201c[I]n determining the legislature\u2019s intent, the court may properly consider not only the language of the statute, but also the reason and necessity for the law, the evils sought to be remedied, and the purpose to be achieved.\u201d People v. Culbreath, 343 Ill. App. 3d 998, 1010, 798 N.E.2d 1268, 1277 (2003).\n\u201cPretrial\u201d obviously means that which occurs prior to a case going to trial. \u201cRelease\u201d is defined as \u201cthe fact of being freed from restraint or confinement.\u201d Black\u2019s Law Dictionary 1292 (7th ed. 1999).\nGiving the words their plain and ordinary meaning, we conclude that defendant was on \u201cpretrial release\u201d beginning on May 6, 2004, when he was mistakenly released from DOC prior to any trial in case Nos. 04 \u2014 CF\u2014362 and 04 \u2014 CF\u2014378, until June 8, 2004, when he was again taken into custody. We find support for our conclusion in People v. Virgin, 302 Ill. App. 3d 438, 453, 707 N.E.2d 97, 107 (1998), in which the First District concluded that a defendant was on pretrial release as contemplated by section 5 \u2014 8\u20144(h) when, after being arraigned, the trial court failed to set bond or release the defendant on his own recognizance and, instead, the defendant simply was released into the community.\nWe note that our construction of the phrase \u201cpretrial release\u201d fully comports with the legislature\u2019s intent in enacting section 5 \u2014 8\u2014 4(h). As the Virgin court noted, \u201c[t]he legislative intent of [section 5 \u2014 8\u20144(h)] is clearly to protect the community by deterring felons who have been released into the community while awaiting trial from committing other felonies.\u201d Virgin, 302 Ill. App. 3d at 453, 707 N.E.2d at 107.\nIn addition, we agree with the State that defendant\u2019s failure to secure his release by posting a bond did not exempt him from mandatory consecutive sentencing under section 5 \u2014 8\u20144(h) of the Code (730 ILCS 5/5 \u2014 8\u20144(h) (West 2004)). In that regard, we agree with the First District in Virgin, 302 Ill. App. 3d at 453, 707 N.E.2d at 107, which wrote as follows:\n\u201c[S]ection [5 \u2014 8\u20144(h)], unlike section 5 \u2014 8\u20144(i) [(730 ILCS 5/5 \u2014 8\u20144(i) (West 1996))], does not require a bond in order to be applicable. While it may be true that, in most cases, a defendant on pretrial release is also on bond, there is nothing in subsection (h) which requires this he the case in order for consecutive sentencing to apply. In this case, where defendant was apparently mistakenly not placed on bond but released pretrial, there is nothing in the language of the statute that would preclude the imposition of consecutive sentences under subsection (h).\u201d\nThe record here shows that while on pretrial release in case Nos. 04 \u2014 CF\u2014362 and 04 \u2014 CF\u2014378, defendant committed three additional burglaries in case Nos. 04 \u2014 CF\u2014697, 04 \u2014 CF\u2014659, and 04 \u2014 CF\u2014667. Thus, section 5 \u2014 8\u20144(h) mandated that the trial court order that the sentences imposed in case Nos. 04 \u2014 CF\u2014697, 04 \u2014 CF\u2014659, and 04\u2014 CF \u2014 667 be served consecutively to the sentences imposed in case Nos. 04 \u2014 CF\u2014362 and 04 \u2014 CF\u2014378. Accordingly, we vacate the concurrent sentences imposed in case Nos. 04 \u2014 CF\u2014697, 04 \u2014 CF\u2014 659, and 04 \u2014 CF\u2014667 and remand with directions to amend the sentencing order to reflect that the six-year prison terms in those three cases are to be served consecutively to the sentences imposed in case Nos. 04 \u2014 CF\u2014362 and 04 \u2014 CF\u2014378.\nIII. CONCLUSION\nFor the reasons stated, we vacate the concurrent sentences imposed in case Nos. 04 \u2014 CF\u2014697, 04 \u2014 CF\u2014659, and 04 \u2014 CF\u2014667 and remand with directions to amend the sentencing order to reflect that the six-year prison terms in those three cases are to be served consecutively to the sentences imposed in case Nos. 04 \u2014 CF\u2014362 and 04 \u2014 CF\u2014378.\nVacated and remanded with directions.\nMYERSCOUGH and TURNER, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE STEIGMANN" } ], "attorneys": [ "Jack Ahola, State\u2019s Attorney, of Decatur (Norbert J. Goetten, Robert J. Biderman, and Thomas R. Ewick, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People.", "Daniel D. Yuhas and Arden J. Lang, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. YANNI P. KARMATZIS, a/k/a John P. Karmatzis, Defendant-Appellee.\nFourth District\nNo. 4-04-0802\nOpinion filed June 5, 2007.\nRehearing denied July 13, 2007.\nJack Ahola, State\u2019s Attorney, of Decatur (Norbert J. Goetten, Robert J. Biderman, and Thomas R. Ewick, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People.\nDaniel D. Yuhas and Arden J. Lang, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0714-01", "first_page_order": 732, "last_page_order": 737 }