People v. Purcell
987 N.E.2d 813
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Purcell was convicted of first-degree murder in 2003 and sentenced to natural life without credit for presentence custody.
- He filed multiple postconviction petitions; none raised sentencing credit until June 2011.
- The circuit court denied leave to file the latest petition; the appeal followed.
- The issue on appeal is whether Purcell is entitled to 815 days of presentence credit against a natural-life sentence.
- Illinois law defines mandatory presentence credit for determinate sentences; the question is whether natural life is determinate.
- The court ultimately holds that natural life is a determinate sentence and credits Purcell 815 days, modifying the mittimus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Purcell is entitled to presentence credit against a natural-life sentence | People contend the issue was forfeited by not raising it earlier | Purcell contends credit must be applied as mandatory against a determinate sentence | Purcell entitled to 815 days of credit; mittimus modified |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Flores, 378 Ill. App. 3d 493 (2008) (mandatory sentencing credit; cannot be waived on appeal)
- People v. Whitmore, 313 Ill. App. 3d 117 (2000) (credit calculation cannot be waived on direct appeal)
- People v. O’Neill, 367 Ill. App. 3d 439 (2006) (trial court can amend mittimus to reflect credit)
- People v. Caballero, 228 Ill. 2d 79 (2008) (sentencing-credit issue treated as an application of the defendant; may be raised at any stage)
- People v. Petrenko, 237 Ill. 2d 490 (2010) (credit issue discussed in context of determinate sentencing)
- People v. Bauman, 2012 IL App (2d) 110544 (2012) (statutory interpretation of determinate vs indeterminate sentencing)
- People v. Fern, 189 Ill. 2d 48 (1999) (abolition of indeterminate sentencing in favor of determinate system)