People v. Isaacson
409 Ill. App. 3d 1079
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Indicted for driving while license suspended under 6-303(a), upgraded to Class 4 felony under 6-303(c-3).
- Defendant moved to dismiss in Aug. 2009, arguing ineligibility for MDDP during summary suspension; trial court denied after Sept. 2009 hearing.
- Nov. 2009 stipulated bench trial; evidence stipulated; defendant preserved challenge to 6-303(c-3); conviction entered with sentence including conditional discharge, jail time, DNA fine, and DNA network contribution.
- Defendant appealed, challenging (1) misinterpretation of 6-303(c-3), (2) additional sentencing credit, (3) $5 per day presentence custody credit under 110-14(a).
- The appellate court affirmed as modified and remanded to correct fines and add a $160 presentence custody credit, with other fines reimposed as mandatory; court held 6-303(c-3) applies when the offender was eligible for an MDDP at the time the suspension was imposed.
- Key procedural posture: Rule 603/604 nuances clarified; sentencing aspects remanded for amended judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 6-303(c-3) applies when the defendant was eligible for an MDDP at the time the suspension was imposed. | People argues eligibility at time of imposition governs. | Isaacson argues eligibility must be at time of violation. | Applied to eligibility at time of suspension imposition. |
| Whether defendant is entitled to an additional day of sentencing credit. | State contends no extra credit due due to sentencing agreement. | Contractual waiver of credit; need for additional day. | No additional day; forfeiture based on sentencing agreement; record shows no extra day. |
| Whether defendant is entitled to a $5 per day presentence custody credit under 110-14(a) against fines. | Credit should offset fines per statute. | 32 days presentence custody should yield $160 credit. | Entitled to $160 credit; remand to apply against fines except $44 VCVA fine; mandatory fines reimposed. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Williams, 239 Ill.2d 503 (2011) (statutory interpretation standard; last antecedent doctrine applied later in analysis)
- People v. Zimmerman, 239 Ill.2d 491 (2010) (interpretation of statutes and purpose; avoid absurd results)
- In re E.B., 231 Ill.2d 459 (2008) (last antecedent doctrine in statutory construction)
- People v. Thompson, 404 Ill.App.3d 265 (2010) (stipulated bench trial and defense preservation nuances)
- People v. Swank, 344 Ill.App.3d 738 (2003) (allocation of fines between judicial and nonjudicial actors; proper imposition of fines)