{
  "id": 4269753,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LEONARD JAMISON, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Jamison",
  "decision_date": "2007-05-30",
  "docket_number": "No. 1-04-2219",
  "first_page": "902",
  "last_page": "905",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "373 Ill. App. 3d 902"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "677 N.E.2d 935",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "946"
        }
      ],
      "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": "861 N.E.2d 967",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2006,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "978"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "223 Ill. 2d 569",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3604511
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2006,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "587"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/223/0569-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "850 N.E.2d 846",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 2006,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "365 Ill. App. 3d 778",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        4263495
      ],
      "year": 2006,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/365/0778-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 415,
    "char_count": 7110,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.709,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.8591662004228935e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3656464141345692
    },
    "sha256": "b877e85311681d496471424b2b3110d6c134abcd2bef12fa1ccb7cae20b2fa90",
    "simhash": "1:8d957c2268de5bb6",
    "word_count": 1169
  },
  "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-Appellee, v. LEONARD JAMISON, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE THEIS\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nFollowing a bench trial, defendant Leonard Jamison was convicted of burglary and sentenced to six years\u2019 imprisonment. On appeal, defendant argued: (1) the trial court erred in imposing a $20 fine against him that was not permitted by law; (2) the court erred in failing to award him $5-per-day presentence credit toward the $4 additional penalty assessed against him; and (3) the compulsory extraction and perpetual storing of his DNA under section 5 \u2014 4\u20143 of the Unified Code of Corrections (the Code) (730 ILCS 5/5 \u2014 4\u20143 (West 2002)) violated his fourth amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches. We affirmed his conviction and sentence and modified the sentencing order to reflect his entitlement to presentence credit toward the $4 penalty in People v. Jamison, 365 Ill. App. 3d 778, 850 N.E.2d 846 (2006). Subsequently, the supreme court decided People v. Jones, 223 Ill. 2d 569, 861 N.E.2d 967 (2006). Pursuant to its supervisory authority, the appellate court was directed to vacate its judgment in Jamison and reconsider the judgment in light of Jones. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court as modified.\nBecause defendant does not challenge the evidence to sustain his conviction, we briefly set forth a summary of the facts underlying his conviction. The evidence at trial established that defendant was observed closing the door of Mark Wheeler\u2019s Ford Explorer on November 30, 2003. Wheeler then discovered three rented DVDs were missing from the front seat of his car. When defendant was stopped by police shortly thereafter for a traffic violation, Wheeler informed the officer of the theft. The plastic bag containing these DVDs and the receipt bearing Wheeler\u2019s name were found in defendant\u2019s car. Defendant did not have permission to enter Wheeler\u2019s vehicle or take the DVDs.\nAfter the court found defendant guilty of burglary, it denied defendant\u2019s motion for a new trial. At a subsequent sentencing hearing, the court then sentenced defendant as a Class X offender to six years\u2019 imprisonment and assessed costs and fees against defendant totaling $549. Following sentencing, defendant did not file a motion to reconsider or reduce his sentence and, thus, never raised an objection regarding fines or credit due to him. In fact, defense counsel informed the trial court of the appropriate monetary charges to be assessed against defendant stating, \u201cJudge, I\u2019ll prepare a DNA order, and the costs are going to be $549.00.\u201d Defendant then filed this timely appeal.\nANALYSIS\nDefendant contends that the compulsory extraction and subsequent storing of his DNA pursuant to section 5 \u2014 4\u20143 of the Code (730 ILCS 5/5 \u2014 4\u20143 (West 2004)) constitutes an unreasonable search, violating his fourth amendment rights. Our supreme court has rejected this exact claim and upheld the constitutionality of the statute in People v. Garvin, 219 111. 2d 104 (2006). Therefore, defendant\u2019s argument fails.\nDefendant next contends that the circuit court erred in failing to afford him a $5-per-day credit against the $4 additional penalty for the Traffic and Criminal Conviction Surcharge Fund (730 ILCS 5/5\u2014 9 \u2014 l(c\u20149) (West 2004)) for the 31 days he spent in custody prior to sentencing. Defendant did not ask the circuit court to offset this monetary assessment with a $5-per-day credit for the days he spent in custody. Nevertheless, we address this issue because defendant may raise the issue of credit on appeal even though he has not first applied for the credit in the circuit court. People v. Woodard, 175 Ill. 2d 435, 457-58, 677 N.E.2d 935, 946 (1997).\nIn People v. Jones, 223 Ill. 2d 569, 587, 861 N.E.2d 967, 978 (2006), our supreme court held that the presentence credit under section 110 \u2014 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/110 \u2014 14 (West 2004)) operates to offset the $4 criminal/traffic conviction surcharge under the Unified Code of Corrections (730 ILCS 5/5\u2014 9 \u2014 l(c\u20149) (West 2004)). Thus, defendant\u2019s $4 surcharge is offset here by his presentence credit.\nDefendant next challenges the trial court\u2019s imposition of the $20 fine for the Violent Crime Victims Assistance Fund (725 ILCS 240/10(c)(2) (West 2004)). He argues that it was erroneously assessed because the $20 fine may only be imposed if \u201cno other fines\u201d are imposed (725 ILCS 240/10(c)(2) (West 2004)), and the trial court imposed the $4 criminal/traffic conviction surcharge.\nThe supreme court in Jones was not called upon to address this specific question. Although defendant is correct that the $20 fine applies only where \u201cno other fine is imposed\u201d (725 ILCS 240/10(c) (West 2004)), we continue to hold that he misconstrues the nature of the $4 fine. The statute provides in pertinent part as follows:\n\u201c(c \u2014 9) There shall be added to every fine imposed in sentencing for a criminal *** offense, *** an additional penalty of $4 imposed. *** Such additional penalty of $4 shall be assessed by the court imposing the fine and shall be collected by the circuit clerk in addition to any other fine, costs, fees, and penalties in the case. *** The additional penalty of $4 shall be in addition to any other fine, costs, fees, and penalties and shall not reduce or affect the distribution of any other fine, costs, fees, and penalties.\u201d (Emphasis added.) 730 ILCS 5/5 \u2014 9\u2014l(c\u20149) (West 2004).\nThus, the plain language of the statute provides that the $4 assessment is an amount to be surcharged as an additional fine; it is considered after the imposition of any basic fines provided for by other legislation. Accordingly, in the present case, after the imposition of the $20 fine, an additional penalty of $4 was surcharged and did not \u201creduce or affect the distribution\u201d of the $20 fine. Therefore, the circuit court properly assessed both the $20 f\u00edne and the $4 additional penalty.\nAccordingly, pursuant to section 110 \u2014 14, defendant\u2019s $4 charge shall be offset by his presentence credit. The sentencing order of the circuit court of Cook County shall be modified to reflect this offset. We otherwise affirm defendant\u2019s conviction and sentence.\nAffirmed as modified.\nKARNEZIS and HOFFMAN, JJ., concur.\nWe note that this $4 additional penalty was added to the statute effective June 20, 2003. Pub. Act 93 \u2014 32, eff. June 20, 2003 (adding 730 ILCS 5/5 \u2014 9\u2014 l(c \u2014 9)). Thus, this section was in effect at the time of defendant\u2019s crime and conviction. However, the legislature later eliminated section 5 \u2014 9\u2014l(c\u20149) in its entirety and replaced it with \u201c(Blank)\u201d effective August 22, 2005. Pub. Act 94 \u2014 652, eff. August 22, 2005 (amending 730 ILCS 5/5 \u2014 9\u2014l(c\u20149)).",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE THEIS"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Michael J. Pelletier and Emily Atwood, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.",
      "Richard A. Devine, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (James Fitzgerald, Mary Boland, and Natosha Cuyler-Sherman, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LEONARD JAMISON, Defendant-Appellant.\nFirst District (3rd Division)\nNo. 1-04-2219\nOpinion filed May 30, 2007.\nMichael J. Pelletier and Emily Atwood, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.\nRichard A. Devine, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (James Fitzgerald, Mary Boland, and Natosha Cuyler-Sherman, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0902-01",
  "first_page_order": 920,
  "last_page_order": 923
}