{
  "id": 4286247,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DANIEL DURHAM, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Durham",
  "decision_date": "2009-06-25",
  "docket_number": "No. 4-08-0448",
  "first_page": "1100",
  "last_page": "1103",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "391 Ill. App. 3d 1100"
    }
  ],
  "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",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "945-46"
        },
        {
          "page": "946"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "175 Ill. 2d 435",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        295830
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "457"
        },
        {
          "page": "457-58"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/175/0435-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 F.3d 85",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.3d",
      "case_ids": [
        11308449
      ],
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "87"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f3d/11/0085-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "665 N.E.2d 493",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "497-98"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "281 Ill. App. 3d 274",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        150149
      ],
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "280"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/281/0274-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "882 N.E.2d 999",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 2008,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1010"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "227 Ill. 2d 322",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5706168
      ],
      "year": 2008,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "342"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/227/0322-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 461,
    "char_count": 7366,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.79,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.856319230494445e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3052172153666102
    },
    "sha256": "aee5b498c4b22e8e8f681dad9040c18a4ee0ba2e0de08462f72f5e3b2d81018f",
    "simhash": "1:be8c94cd7d4894a2",
    "word_count": 1260
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:50:16.782503+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. DANIEL DURHAM, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE STEIGMANN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nFollowing an April 2008 bench trial, the trial court convicted defendant, Daniel Durham, of failure to (1) notify the owner of property defendant had damaged in a motor vehicle accident (625 ILCS 5/11 \u2014 404 (West 2006)) and (2) reduce speed to avoid an accident (625 ILCS 5/11 \u2014 601 (West 2006)). In June 2008, the court sentenced defendant to 24 months of court supervision and ordered him to pay various fines and fees.\nDefendant appeals, arguing that this court should remand this case to the trial court (1) for a determination of the number of days defendant spent in custody awaiting sentencing and (2) to award $5-a-day sentence credit for that time pursuant to section 110 \u2014 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/110 \u2014 14 (West 2006)). We disagree and affirm.\nI. BACKGROUND\nInitially, we point out that the record before us on appeal contains only the following background, which is uncertain with regard to this case\u2019s procedural history.\nIn June 2007, a deputy sheriff issued defendant citations for failing to (1) notify the owner of a trailer defendant had damaged in a motor vehicle accident; (2) reduce his speed to avoid an accident; and (3) report the accident to police in violation of sections 11 \u2014 404, 11\u2014 601, and 11 \u2014 407, respectively, of the Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/11 \u2014 404, 11 \u2014 601, 11 \u2014 407 (West 2006)). Each citation required defendant to appear in McLean County circuit court for a July 24, 2007, hearing, but he failed to do so. The trial court thereafter issued a warrant for defendant\u2019s arrest, which it later recalled.\nAt an August 2007 hearing, (1) defendant appeared before the trial court and (2) the court (a) found probable cause to detain defendant and (b) remanded him to the custody of the sheriff. However, the record does not indicate whether defendant was in fact detained by the sheriff at that time. That defendant was released at some point may be inferred from the docket entry stating that on March 11, 2008, the court issued a second warrant for defendant\u2019s arrest for failing to appear. What transpired between the time the court issued the second warrant and defendant either turned himself in or was arrested is unclear from the record. Nonetheless, the record shows that on March 24, 2008, defendant appeared in court pursuant to the second warrant and posted bond.\nFollowing an April 30, 2008, bench trial, the trial court convicted defendant of failure to (1) notify the owner of property defendant had damaged in a motor vehicle accident (625 ILCS 5/11 \u2014 404 (West 2006)) and (2) reduce speed to avoid an accident (625 ILCS 5/11 \u2014 601 (West 2006)). The docket entry from the date of trial reads, in pertinent part, as follows:\n\u201c[Defendant] found guilty on [counts] I [and] II; cause out for sentencing 6/3/08 [at] 1:30 p.m. ATTN \u2014 [defendant] admonished to sentencing in abstentia [sic].\u201d\nIn June 2008, the court sentenced defendant to 24 months of court supervision and ordered him to pay various fines and fees, with the fines totaling $300.\nThis appeal followed.\nII. DEFENDANT\u2019S CLAIM THAT THIS COURT SHOULD REMAND THIS CASE TO THE TRIAL COURT\nOn appeal, defendant argues only that this court should remand this case to the trial court (1) for a determination of the number of days defendant spent in custody awaiting sentencing and (2) to award him $5-a-day sentence credit for that time under section 110 \u2014 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/110 \u2014 14 (West 2006) (\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\u201d)). We decline defendant\u2019s request.\nThe burden to present a record to support defendant\u2019s claim falls upon him as the appellant. People v. Deleon, 227 Ill. 2d 322, 342, 882 N.E.2d 999, 1010 (2008). Here, the record shows that defendant may have been in custody at some point although just how long is unclear. Based upon the docket entries, we cannot be certain that defendant was ever in custody while awaiting sentencing. Assuming defendant was in custody on these charges for one or more days, he requests that we remand this case to the trial court for resolution of the only issue this case presents \u2014 namely, how much credit is defendant entitled to \u2014 $10, $15, or some other amount?\nLitigation like this brings the judicial system into disrepute. Rational citizens (not connected to the law) would deem this appeal an utter waste of time and resources for all concerned. The time and money already spent bringing this appeal amounts to squandered resources. We will not be part of further squandering.\nThe maxim de minimis non curat lex (\u201cThe law does not concern itself with trifles\u201d (Black\u2019s Law Dictionary 443 (7th ed. 1999))) retains force in Illinois and is wholly applicable in this case. This maxim applies even to constitutional claims, and its function is to place outside the scope of legal relief the sorts of \u201cinjuries\u201d that are so small that they \u201c \u2018must be accepted as the price of living in society rather than made a federal case out of.\u2019 \u201d Pacini v. Regopoulos, 281 Ill. App. 3d 274, 280, 665 N.E.2d 493, 497-98 (1996), quoting Swick v. City of Chicago, 11 F.3d 85, 87 (7th Cir. 1993).\nHere, the amount of credit defendant might be due under section 110 \u2014 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 \u2014 if any at all \u2014 is so insignificant that no one paid any attention to the matter at the trial level.\nWe are aware of the supreme court\u2019s decision in People v. Woodard, 175 Ill. 2d 435, 457, 677 N.E.2d 935, 945-46 (1997), holding that a defendant does not forfeit the $5-a-day credit by failing to request it in the trial court. However, even if de minimis non curat lex did not apply in this case, we do not read Woodard to require remand for a hearing to determine whether (1) the defendant was in custody and, if so, (2) how many days he was in custody. We note that the supreme court in Woodard affirmed the appellate court\u2019s modification of the trial court\u2019s judgment that allowed on appeal a per diem credit pursuant to section 110 \u2014 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963. Woodard, 175 Ill. 2d at 457-58, 677 N.E.2d at 946. Indeed, we have not found \u2014 and defendant has not cited \u2014 any decision in which an Illinois court has remanded a case for a hearing on the number of days a defendant was in custody or incarcerated so as to determine how much per diem credit the defendant should have credited against any fine imposed upon him. We will not be the first court to do so.\nIII. CONCLUSION\nFor the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court\u2019s judgment. As part of our judgment, we grant the State\u2019s request that defendant be assessed $50 as costs for this appeal.\nAffirmed.\nTURNER and POPE, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE STEIGMANN"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Michael J. Pelletier, Gary R. Peterson, and Janieen R. Tarrance, all of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.",
      "William A. Yoder, State\u2019s Attorney, of Bloomington (Patrick Delfino, Robert J. Biderman, and Linda Susan McClain, all 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. DANIEL DURHAM, Defendant-Appellant.\nFourth District\nNo. 4\u201408\u20140448\nOpinion filed June 25, 2009.\nMichael J. Pelletier, Gary R. Peterson, and Janieen R. Tarrance, all of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Springfield, for appellant.\nWilliam A. Yoder, State\u2019s Attorney, of Bloomington (Patrick Delfino, Robert J. Biderman, and Linda Susan McClain, all of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "1100-01",
  "first_page_order": 1114,
  "last_page_order": 1117
}