People v. Haskins

No. 3--04--0336
_________________________________________________________________
Filed March 24, 2006.
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
THIRD DISTRICT
A.D., 2006
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
OF ILLINOIS, ) of the 9th Judicial Circuit,
) McDonough County, Illinois,
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
)
v. ) No. 03--CF--15
)
STEVEN D. HASKINS, ) Honorable
) William D. Henderson,
Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding.
_________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE delivered the Opinion of the court:
_________________________________________________________________
The defendant, Steven D. Haskins, was found guilty of
burglary (720 ILCS 5/19--1(a) (West 2000)). The trial court
sentenced him to 20 years of imprisonment and payment of $11,320
in restitution. Among other things, the sentencing order
authorized the Department of Corrections (DOC) to withhold a
portion of the defendant's wages toward payment of the
restitution. On appeal, the defendant argues that there is a
split of authority concerning whether a trial court is authorized
to order the DOC to withhold wages to pay restitution, and that
this court has not decided the issue. We note, however, that in
People v. Gathing, 334 Ill. App. 3d 617, 778 N.E.2d 215 (2002),
we previously decided that a trial court is authorized to order
the DOC to withhold wages to pay a fine. The defendant has not
distinguished between withholding to pay a fine and withholding
to pay restitution, and we see no reason to draw such a
distinction. Therefore, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
The trial court's written sentencing order states the
following:
"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the [DOC] is ordered
to withhold [a portion of the defendant's wages] and
remit that amount to the clerk of the Circuit Court of
McDonough County, Illinois for the applications to
amounts due in this case.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant shall pay
restitution of $11,320.00, court costs and penalties;
defendant shall contact the State's Attorney's
Collection Specialist within 30 days of release from
the [DOC] and enter into a payment agreement."
The defendant filed a motion for summary order with this
court, in which he argued that the withholding portion of the
sentencing order should be vacated. The State submitted an
objection to the motion for summary order, arguing that the
withholding portion of the sentencing order referred to both a
fine and restitution, and that the defendant's wages could
lawfully be withheld for both.
In the defendant's response to the State's objection, he
acknowledged that the restitution statute authorizes a trial
judge to "enter an order of withholding to collect the amount of
restitution owed in accordance with Part 8 of Article XII of the
2
Code of Civil Procedure" (730 ILCS 5/5--5--6(h) (West 2004)).
However, the defendant submitted that there was a split of
authority within the Illinois Appellate Court concerning whether
DOC wages should be withheld to pay restitution and fines. See
People v. Mancilla, 331 Ill. App. 3d 35, 770 N.E.2d 1262 (2d
Dist. 2002) (DOC wages may be withheld); People v. Watson, 318
Ill. App. 3d 140, 743 N.E.2d 147 (4th Dist. 2000) (DOC wages may
not be withheld). The defendant contended that this court had
not decided the issue. The defendant reiterated that the
withholding order should be vacated, or alternatively, that it
should apply only to restitution.
On November 15, 2005, this court issued an order to the
trial court asking it to clarify its sentencing order while we
retained jurisdiction over the matter. On December 22, 2005, the
trial court entered an order clarifying the original sentencing
order. The trial court said that (1) fines were not imposed
against the defendant; (2) pursuant to this court's order, the
portion of the sentencing order that applied to withholding to
pay unspecified court costs and penalties was vacated; and (3)
the withholding portion of the order applied only to $11,320 in
restitution. Additionally, the trial court stated that the
restitution was to be paid first by withholding the defendant's
DOC wages during his incarceration, and then, upon his release
from incarceration, by entering into a payment agreement to pay
any unpaid restitution.
3
ANALYSIS
The defendant argues that there is a split of authority
concerning whether the trial court was authorized to order the
DOC to withhold his wages to pay the restitution, and that this
court has not decided the issue.
In Gathing, 334 Ill. App. 3d 617, 778 N.E.2d 215, the
defendant argued, among other things, that the trial court lacked
authority to order the DOC to withhold his wages to pay a fine.
In response, we said the following:
"Section 5--9--4 of the Unified Code of Corrections
(730 ILCS 5/5--9--4 (West 2000)) allows a court to
enter an order of withholding to collect the amount of
a fine imposed on an offender. Consequently, the trial
court had authority to order the defendant's income
withheld to pay the mandatory drug assessment."
Gathing, 334 Ill. App. 3d at 620-21, 778 N.E.2d at 217-
18.
Similarly to section 5--9--4, the Unified Code of
Corrections also allows a court to enter an order of withholding
to collect restitution. See 730 ILCS 5/5--5--6(h) (West 2004).
Although our ruling in Gathing did not concern the withholding of
DOC wages to collect restitution, but instead concerned the
withholding of such wages to pay a fine, we see no reason not to
apply the holding of Gathing to the withholding of DOC wages for
the payment of restitution. Moreover, in his response, the
defendant did not distinguish between withholding for restitution
4
and withholding for a fine. Therefore, in the instant case, we
hold that the trial court did not err by ordering the DOC to
withhold the defendant's wages toward payment of restitution.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the sentencing order of
the McDonough County circuit court, as previously modified and
clarified by that court.
Affirmed.
SLATER and O=BRIEN, JJ., concur.
5