People v. Coleman
90 N.E.3d 1043
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Coleman was convicted of delivering ≥900 grams of cocaine and sentenced to 25 years; on direct appeal this court awarded 8 days additional presentence credit and remanded.
- After postconviction proceedings, this court reversed and remanded for resentencing on a lesser included offense; on April 22, 2015 the trial court resentenced Coleman to 21 years and awarded 3,317 days presentence credit.
- The State moved to amend the sentencing order; on June 29, 2015 the trial court entered a second amended sentencing judgment, reducing presentence credit to 2,923 days (June 27, 2007–June 28, 2015).
- On August 3, 2016 Coleman filed a pro se “Motion To Amend and Correct Mittimus” seeking additional credit for periods in 2006; the trial court denied the motion on October 14, 2016.
- Coleman filed a notice of appeal on October 24, 2016 (and an amended notice on November 10, 2016) challenging the denial; the appellate court considered whether it had jurisdiction given the timing of appeals from the June 29, 2015 second amended sentencing judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate court has jurisdiction where notice of appeal was filed >30 days after the second amended sentencing judgment | The State (plaintiff) contended timely notice of appeal is required; no timely notice was filed so no jurisdiction | Coleman argued the court retained jurisdiction because a mittimus may be amended at any time and he appealed within 30 days of the denial of his mittimus motion | Court held no jurisdiction: Coleman failed to file timely notice from the June 29, 2015 sentencing judgment, so appeal dismissed |
| Whether trial court could amend mittimus anytime to grant additional presentence credit after relinquishing jurisdiction | State: Amending a mittimus applies only where a separate mittimus exists that conflicts with the sentencing judgment; here no separate mittimus existed | Coleman: A mittimus can be amended at any time and he appealed the mittimus denial timely | Court held Coleman's relief sought was to alter the sentencing judgment (not a separate mittimus); thus mittimus-amendment-at-any-time doctrine does not save his untimely appeal |
| Whether a nunc pro tunc order or correction of clerical error could provide jurisdiction to change presentence credit after sentencing | State: Nunc pro tunc corrects clerical errors that make the record reflect what the court actually decided; it cannot correct judicial errors or substantive determinations | Coleman: He framed the problem as a clerical/clerical-type error warranting correction | Court held presentence-credit determination requires substantive factfinding (custody periods); correcting such judicial error is not a proper use of nunc pro tunc, so jurisdiction cannot be based on that doctrine |
| Whether prior appellate decision (law of the case) entitles Coleman to earlier credit and thus affects jurisdiction | State: Law of the case does not permit the trial court now to be compelled by appellant’s late appeal; the trial court’s independent resentencing stands unless timely appealed | Coleman: Relied on earlier Coleman decision awarding March 22–29, 2006 credit and argued that law of the case compelled additional credit now | Court held Coleman’s claim challenges a judicial decision (failure to follow prior law) and cannot be remedied by nunc pro tunc; lack of timely appeal bars review |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Salem, 2016 IL 118693 (Illinois Supreme Court) (final judgment in criminal case is entry of sentence)
- People v. Kellerman, 342 Ill. App. 3d 1019 (2003) (timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional)
- People v. Coleman, 391 Ill. App. 3d 963 (2009) (prior appellate holding awarding limited presentence credit)
- People v. Quintana, 332 Ill. App. 3d 96 (2002) (discussing amendment of mittimus)
- People v. White, 357 Ill. App. 3d 1070 (2005) (court retained jurisdiction to correct nonsubstantial mittimus matters — court here respectfully disagreed)
- People v. Miles, 117 Ill. App. 3d 257 (1983) (distinguishing sentencing order from separate mittimus)
- People v. Wagner, 390 Ill. 384 (1945) (traditional rule that mittimus could be amended at any time when separate from sentencing order)
- People v. Anderson, 407 Ill. 503 (1950) (same principle regarding mittimus)
- People v. Daulley, 387 Ill. 403 (1944) (historical discussion of mittimus and sentencing order)
- People v. Stacey, 372 Ill. 478 (1939) (same)
- People v. Wos, 395 Ill. 172 (1946) (nunc pro tunc may correct clerical errors but not judicial errors)