People v. Smith, 12 N.E.3d 231

Smith was convicted of two counts felonious aggravated DUI and one misdemeanor DUI, sentenced to three years, counts merged into the most serious.
He was released on appellate bond pending direct appeal with home confinement and SCRAM/GPS monitoring and other conditions.
The trial court and appellate court approved the bond conditions, later modified due to monitoring limitations.
After affirmance of conviction and sentence, Smith sought sentencing credit for time spent under home confinement pending appeal.
The trial court denied credit and remanded Smith to IDOC; Smith appeals the denial.
The issue before the court is whether time spent on appeal bond in home confinement constitutes custody for sentencing credit purposes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether time spent in home confinement on appeal bond qualifies as custody for credit purposes.	Smith argues it is custody under 5-4.5-100.	Smith contends Beachem requires credit for home detention.	No custody; credit denied.
Which crediting statute applies to appellate bond time, 5-4.5-100 or prior 5-8-7.	Latest version favors credit for home detention.	Beachem does not require credit for home confinement on appeal.	Either version yields no credit for appeal-home confinement.
Do Ramos and Beachem compel treating home confinement on appeal as custody under the statute.	Cites Ramos/Beachem to argue custodial status for appeal-time.	Distinguishes Beachem’s Day Reporting from home confinement on appeal; not custody.	Beachem and Ramos support non-custody conclusion for appeal bond.

People v. Ramos, 138 Ill.2d 152 (1990) (home detention not custody for sentencing credit per statute then)
People v. Beachem, 229 Ill.2d 237 (2008) (distinguishes bond release from day reporting; custody definition ambiguous)
Morrison v. Sielaff, 58 Ill.2d 91 (1974) (pretrial release not custody under prior statute)