People v. O'Neill ( 2006 )

No. 2--05--0701 filed: 8/28/06
______________________________________________________________________
________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
SECOND DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________
________
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
OF ILLINOIS, ) of Lake County.
)
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
) Nos. 04--CV--1546
v. ) 04--CV--1547
)
SANDRA L. O'NEILL, ) Honorable
) Mitchell L. Hoffman,
Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding.
_________________________________________________________________________
_____
JUSTICE BOWMAN delivered the opinion of the court:
Sandra O'Neill appeals her sentence imposing a fine for operating a watercraft while under
the influence of alcohol. She contends that she is entitled to a $10 credit against her fine, for two
days that she was in custody. Because the credit may be raised for the first time on appeal and the
State concedes that O'Neill was entitled to the credit, we modify the sentencing order.
O'Neill was arrested on August 27, 2004, and released on bond on August 28, 2004. She was
convicted and sentenced to perform 150 hours of community service, pay a $150 fine, and attend
programs as ordered. O'Neill moved to reconsider, but the motion did not request credit for the time
she was in custody. The trial court converted the sentence to a total fine of $1,650 and did not
include the credit. The record does not contain transcripts from the sentencing hearing or the
hearing on the motion to reconsider.
O'Neill contends that she is entitled to the $10 credit. The State concedes that the record
shows that O'Neill is entitled to the credit, but it argues that she waived the matter by failing to
present a proper record on appeal.
Section 110--14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 provides: "Any 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 credit of $5 for each day so incarcerated upon
application of the defendant." 725 ILCS 5/110--14 (West 2004). The Illinois Supreme Court has
held that the credit is not limited to people who apply for it at the trial level. People v. Woodard,
175 Ill. 2d 435, 447-48 (1997). Therefore, the normal rules of waiver do not apply and the right is
cognizant on appeal as a matter of course subject to the defendant's application. Woodard, 175 Ill.
2d at 457. Applying Woodard, we have granted a defendant's request for the credit despite the fact
that the right to appeal had been waived. People v. Collins, 328 Ill. App. 3d 366, 373 (2002).
The State cites to the proposition that the appellant has the burden to present an adequate
record and that the failure to do so will be construed against the appellant. See, e.g., People v.
Johnson, 285 Ill. App. 3d 307, 308 (1996). Yet, the State concedes that the record shows that
O'Neill is entitled to a $10 credit. Because O'Neill can make her request on appeal and the record is
sufficient to show that she is entitled to a credit, the matter is not waived by her failure to include
transcripts from the sentencing proceeding and the hearing on the motion for reconsideration.
Because the issue is not waived, we modify the sentence to reflect the credit of $10. We
pause, however, to make the following observation: Over time, we have seen numerous
appeals where the sole issue is application of the credit and the matter is raised for the first
time on appeal. In most instances, the monetary amount at issue is minimal, yet resolution
No. 2--05--0701
of the appeal requires a disproportional expenditure of state and judicial resources. We
note that if such matters were initially addressed at sentencing or by motion in the trial
court, the credit could be properly applied in an efficient manner and additional public costs
could be avoided. We observe that even after it has otherwise lost jurisdiction, the trial
court retains jurisdiction to amend a mittimus to reflect additional sentencing credit. People
v. White, 357 Ill. App. 3d 1070, 1073 (2005). Thus, we encourage attorneys to raise the
matter in the trial court to avoid unnecessary public costs.
Affirmed as modified.
BYRNE and CALLUM, JJ., concur.
-3-