People v. Scalise
80 N.E.3d 688
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- In 2009 Scalise pled guilty to two counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child and was sentenced to consecutive prison terms; the judgment awarded nine days of presentence custody credit and assessed $6,056 in costs (including a $50 Court Systems Fee).
- The State had recommended two 12-year terms plus mandatory supervised release; defendant forfeited part of his bond to pay costs.
- Scalise filed a postconviction petition (dismissed); on appeal the court adjusted fines and ordered a partial refund in 2015.
- In 2015 Scalise filed a 2-1401 petition raising multiple claims; the trial court dismissed it as untimely and meritless. On appeal he abandoned those claims and raised only entitlement to a $5-per-day presentence incarceration credit for his nine days in custody.
- The statutory issue arises under 725 ILCS 5/110-14: subsection (a) provides a $5/day credit "upon application of the defendant," while subsection (b) (added in 2005) bars the credit for certain sexual-offense convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §110-14(b) may be applied to deny Scalise the $5/day presentence credit | State: §110-14(b) validly bars credit for specified sexual offenses and applies to Scalise | Scalise: retroactive application of §110-14(b) violates the ex post facto clauses and he should get $5/day for nine days | Court: §110-14(b) is nonpunitive/benefit-based; ex post facto does not apply; Scalise ineligible for credit |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Caballero, 228 Ill. 2d 79 (Ill. 2008) (per-diem credit under §110-14 is mandatory upon application and may be raised on appeal)
- People v. Woodard, 175 Ill. 2d 435 (Ill. 1997) (discusses statutory credits and appellate review)
- People ex rel. Birkett v. Konetski, 233 Ill. 2d 185 (Ill. 2009) (ex post facto prohibition applies to retroactive increases in punishment)
- People v. Prince, 371 Ill. App. 3d 878 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007) (held §110-14(b) application was ex post facto; disagreed with by majority here)
- People v. Delgado, 368 Ill. App. 3d 985 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006) (ex post facto analysis regarding statutory changes affecting punishment)
- In re May 1991 Will County Grand Jury, 152 Ill. 2d 381 (Ill. 1992) (appellate panels not bound by other districts' decisions)