Hughes v. Godinez
11 N.E.3d 842
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Hughes, an inmate, filed pro se mandamus seeking to compel DOC to correct his projected release date.
- Sentence on Feb 7, 2007 consisted of concurrent terms: 17y murder, 12y aggravated arson, 12y residential arson, 5y concealment; 864 days pretrial credit.
- 3-6-3(a)(2.5) required minimum 85% service on aggravated arson; 3-6-3(a)(2.1) allowed day-for-day credit on murder.
- DOC in Aug 2009 computed two projected dates: 2013 under murder and 2014 under aggravated arson, using the longer (aggravated arson) as the controlling date.
- Plaintiff claimed the most serious offense (murder) should control; trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DOC properly computed projected release date under 5-8-7(b) | Hughes argues murder should control as the most serious offense. | DOC properly used aggravated arson as the maximum term. | Yes; DOC complied with 5-8-7(b) and used aggravated arson as the maximum term. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Revell, 372 Ill. App. 3d 981 (2007) (purpose of credit under 5-8-7(b) to avoid excess incarceration)
- Johnson v. Department of Corrections, 368 Ill. App. 3d 147 (2006) (credits can be awarded in aggregate upfront subject to reductions)
- In re B.L.S., 202 Ill. 2d 510 (2002) (credit for time in custody linked to offense sentenced)
- People v. Robinson, 172 Ill. 2d 452 (1996) (credit allocation principles for good-time credits)
- Waldron, 375 Ill. App. 3d 159 (2007) (concurrent sentences—which term is the maximum for calculation)