2017 IL App (4th) 160770
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- Coleman was convicted of delivering 900+ grams of cocaine and originally sentenced to 25 years; on direct appeal this court awarded eight additional days of presentence credit and remanded.
- After postconviction proceedings and a later appeal, this court ordered resentencing on a lesser-included offense (15–100 grams); on April 22, 2015 the trial court resentenced Coleman to 21 years and awarded 3,317 days of presentence credit.
- The State moved to amend the sentencing order; on June 29, 2015 the court entered a second amended sentencing judgment awarding 2,923 days of presentence credit (June 27, 2007–June 28, 2015).
- On August 3, 2016 Coleman filed a pro se "Motion To Amend and Correct Mittimus" seeking additional presentence 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) from the October 14, 2016 order denying his motion.
- The appellate court considered whether it had jurisdiction given that no notice of appeal was filed within 30 days of the June 29, 2015 sentencing judgment and whether the trial court retained power to amend the mittimus or enter nunc pro tunc relief after relinquishing jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate court has jurisdiction when notice of appeal was filed >30 days after final sentencing judgment | Timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional; none was filed within 30 days of June 29, 2015, so court lacks jurisdiction | Coleman filed notice within 30 days of denial of his mittimus motion, so appeal should be timely | Dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because no timely notice from the June 29, 2015 sentencing judgment |
| Whether a trial court may amend a mittimus at any time to grant additional presentence credit | Mittimus can be amended any time only when a separate mittimus (warrant) conflicts with the sentencing judgment | Coleman contends an amended mittimus may be issued at any time and his appeal is timely from denial of mittimus motion | No separate mittimus existed; defendant sought to modify the sentencing judgment itself, so post-judgment amendment power insufficient to confer jurisdiction |
| Whether trial court may use nunc pro tunc or clerical-correction power to add presentence credit after relinquishing jurisdiction | Court can correct clerical errors or arithmetic by nunc pro tunc to make record reflect what court actually decided | Coleman argued his credit entitlement was dictated by prior appellate decision and statutes, so it's more than clerical | Nunc pro tunc applies only to clerical mistakes, not to correcting judicial errors or altering a substantive sentencing determination; cannot be used to grant additional credit here |
| Effect of prior appellate mandate awarding some credit | State argued the trial court’s later sentencing decision stands unless timely appealed | Coleman relied on the earlier appellate decision (awarding March 22–29, 2006) as law of the case | Prior appellate ruling does not permit the trial court to be corrected nunc pro tunc by a different court; substantive deviation is a judicial error that cannot be fixed by nunc pro tunc after jurisdiction is lost |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Coleman, 391 Ill. App. 3d 963 (Illinois App. Ct.) (earlier appellate decision awarding additional presentence credit)
- People v. Wagner, 390 Ill. 384 (Ill.) (distinguishing sentencing judgment from separate mittimus)
- People v. Anderson, 407 Ill. 503 (Ill.) (historical rule on mittimus as warrant of commitment)
- People v. Daulley, 387 Ill. 403 (Ill.) (mittimus authority)
- People v. Stacey, 372 Ill. 478 (Ill.) (mittimus authority)
- People v. White, 357 Ill. App. 3d 1070 (Ill. App. Ct.) (court held mittimus/sentencing order correction post-judgment; disagreed with here)
- People v. Quintana, 332 Ill. App. 3d 96 (Ill. App. Ct.) (discussing amendment of mittimus)
- People v. Miles, 117 Ill. App. 3d 257 (Ill. App. Ct.) (mittimus discussion)
- People v. Wos, 395 Ill. 172 (Ill.) (nunc pro tunc cannot correct judicial errors)