People v. Young ( 2021 )

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except
in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
2021 IL App (3d) 180656-UOrder filed February 11, 2021
____________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
THIRD DISTRICT
2021
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
ILLINOIS, ) of the 14th Judicial Circuit,
) Mercer County, Illinois,
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
) Appeal No. 3-18-0656
v. ) Circuit No. 17-CF-33
)
CAINEN L. YOUNG, ) Honorable
) Richard A. Zimmer,
Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding.
____________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE WRIGHT delivered the judgment of the court.
Presiding Justice McDade and Justice Schmidt concurred in the judgment.
____________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
¶1 Held: Defendant is not entitled to additional credit for time served after May 31, 2017,
based on the terms of his negotiated plea agreement in Mercer County.
¶2 Defendant, Cainen L. Young, appeals the Mercer County circuit court’s denial of his
“Motion for Order Nunc Pro Tunc” requesting additional credit for presentence time served
while in the custody of the Rock Island County jail on separate charges. We affirm.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 On March 10, 2017, two detectives from Mercer County were investigating a report of a
suspicious vehicle travelling in Mercer County. Eventually, the officers located the suspicious
vehicle and placed defendant in custody after discovering methamphetamine in the vehicle. On
March 13, 2017, the Mercer County State’s Attorney charged defendant with unlawful
possession of methamphetamine (720 ILCS 646/60(b)(3) (West 2016)), methamphetamine
delivery (id. § 55(a)(1)), aggravated fleeing or attempting to elude a peace officer (625 ILCS
5/11-204.1(a)(1) (West 2016)), fleeing or attempting to elude a peace officer (id. § 11-204), two
counts of criminal damage to property (720 ILCS 5/21-1(a)(1) (West 2016)), and unlawful
possession of drug paraphernalia (720 ILCS 600/3.5(a) (West 2016)) based on the events that
took place in Mercer County on March 10, 2017.
¶5 On May 31, 2017, the court granted the Mercer County prosecutor’s motion to release
defendant on a Notice to Appear, over defendant’s objection. During the discussion regarding
defendant’s release from the Mercer County jail, the trial court noted there were multiple holds
on defendant attributable to pending charges in another county and possibly another state. On
May 31, 2017, defense counsel advised the court that defendant wished to have the Mercer
County charges resolved first and therefore, defendant objected to his release on a Notice to
Appear.
¶6 Following the court’s approval of the State’s request to release defendant from the
custody of the Mercer County jail on the Notice to Appear, defendant was transported to the
Rock Island County jail on May 31, 2017, to answer to charges in that county. Defendant asserts
that the Rock Island County charges were resolved by plea agreement on February 6, 2018.
2
¶7 One week later, on February 13, 2018, defendant was transported to Mercer County from
the Rock Island County jail for the purpose of entering a guilty plea in Mercer County. On that
date, in exchange for his guilty plea to the unlawful possession of methamphetamine charge in
Mercer County case No. 17-CF-33, the State agreed to a sentence of eight years’ imprisonment
and then dismissed the other pending Mercer County charges as part of the negotiated plea
agreement. Following the court’s approval of the plea agreement, the court stated:
“THE COURT: *** In accordance with your agreement, you are
sentenced to eight years in the [DOC] ***. You will receive all appropriate credit
for time served. My understanding is [the State] will draft the order, get the time,
get it to your attorney and it will not be presented to me until your attorney has
approved it.
[THE STATE]: Quite the contrary, your Honor. We have confirmed now
with the jail that [defendant’s] proposed dates are the exact dates of 3-10-17
through 5-31-17, a total of 83 actual days.”
The court then stated, “So eight years [DOC] credit for time served the dates that you’ve agreed
to, followed by the two years mandatory supervised release. This runs concurrent with 17 CF
218 in Rock Island County.” After the court recited the remaining terms, defendant stated
“Okay,” and further confirmed that he understood the terms of his plea agreement. The amended
written sentencing order, entered in April 2018, awarded defendant presentence custody credit
for the period of March 10, 2017, to May 31, 2017, as stated during the proceedings in the circuit
court of Mercer County.
¶8 In July 2018, defendant filed a “Motion for Order Nunc Pro Tunc” in Mercer County case
No. 17-CF-33, claiming he was entitled to more than 83 days presentence credit and requesting
3
credit on the Mercer County sentence for time spent in the Rock Island County jail after his
release from Mercer County on May 31, 2017. Noting the terms of the plea agreement, the
Mercer County circuit court denied defendant’s motion for additional credit for time served.
Defendant appeals.
¶9 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 10 At the outset, we note that defendant requested a correction of the Mercer County
mittimus in July 2018, prior to the enactment of Supreme Court Rule 472. Since the circuit court
of Mercer County has had an opportunity to reconsider the amount of time served at defendant’s
request, in the interest of judicial economy, we conclude our review is not precluded by the
parameters of Supreme Court Rule 472(c). Ill. S. Ct. R. 472(c) (eff. Mar. 1, 2019).
¶ 11 Defendant argues the Mercer County circuit court erred by denying his “Motion for
Order Nunc Pro Tunc,” seeking additional credit for the time he spent in the Rock Island County
jail, beginning on May 31, 2017, pending resolution of separate criminal charges. 1 Specifically,
defendant claims that after his release on a Notice to Appear from the Mercer County jail on
May 31, 2017, he was in the simultaneous custody of both Mercer County and Rock Island
County until his arrival at IDOC on March 1, 2018. We disagree.
¶ 12 Contrary to defendant’s contention on appeal, the record reveals defendant was released
from the custody of Mercer County on May 31, 2017, over defendant’s objection. From the date
of his release on the Notice to Appear dated May 31, 2017, until the date of the plea agreement
presented in Mercer County on February 13, 2018, defendant was not in custody on the Mercer
County charges due to his prior release from the Mercer County jail on the Notice to Appear.
1
Defendant labeled his request for a correction to his presentence credit as a “Motion for Order
Nunc Pro Tunc.” This court has determined nunc pro tunc orders may not be used to challenge a court’s
previous decision. People v. Brown, 2017 IL App (3d) 140907, ¶ 8. Therefore, we treat defendant’s
motion as a motion to correct the mittimus. See id.4
¶ 13 Moreover, during the presentation of the plea agreement to the court in Mercer County,
the parties expressly agreed that defendant would receive exactly 83 days of credit for the time
he was in actual custody in Mercer County. The record affirmatively establishes that defendant
understood and agreed to the terms of his guilty plea in Mercer County, which provided that
defendant would receive precisely 83 days of presentence credit. The record clearly reveals that
the amended Mercer County mittimus properly credited defendant for the 83 days he actually
spent in the custody of Mercer County from March 10, 2017, until the date of his release from
the Mercer County jail on May 31, 2017.
¶ 14 Finally, with an abundance of caution, we have examined the record and determined that
83 days of credit for time served in Mercer County case No. 17-CF-33 is both accurate and
consistent with the Mercer County records. Hence, the parties were not mistaken about the
number of days that elapsed before defendant was released from the custody of Mercer County.
¶ 15 In this case, defendant is attempting to modify the terms of the fully negotiated plea
agreement, without seeking to withdraw his guilty plea based on a purported misunderstanding
of the correct amount of credit for time served. See People v. Whitfield, 217 Ill. 2d 177, 190
(2005) (“[W]hen a defendant enters a negotiated plea of guilty in exchange for specified benefits
*** both the State and the defendant must be bound by the terms of the agreement.” (Emphasis
in original.); see also People v. McDermott, 2014 IL App (4th) 120655, ¶ 27 (“[W]hen a
specified amount of sentence credit is included within the terms of a defendant’s plea agreement
with the State, the defendant is entitled to the amount of sentence credit promised.”).
¶ 16 Confining this analysis to the unique record relevant to Mercer County case No. 17-CF-
33, we conclude that defendant is not entitled to additional credit for time spent in presentence
5
custody, beyond the 83 days expressly agreed to as part of the negotiated plea agreement the trial
court approved.
¶ 17 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 18 The judgment of the circuit court of Mercer County is affirmed.
¶ 19 Affirmed.
6