People v. Young
115 N.E.3d 194
Ill.2019Background
- Nelson Young was convicted of first-degree murder in 2006 and sentenced to 40 years with 215 days of presentence custody credit; additional fines were later recorded by the clerk though not imposed by the trial court.
- Young was found unfit in 2005, restored to fitness in 2006, tried, convicted, and unsuccessfully appealed on other-crimes evidence grounds; he filed successive collateral petitions later challenging fitness, counsel, and sentencing credit.
- The circuit court recharacterized a section 2-1401 filing as a successive postconviction petition, dismissed it, and denied Young counsel and reconsideration.
- On appeal the Fourth District vacated the dismissal for failure to give Pearson admonishments and ordered vacatur of three clerk-recorded assessments, but declined to address Young’s claim for an additional 183 days of presentence custody credit as forfeited.
- The Illinois Supreme Court granted review to decide whether a presentence custody-credit claim may be raised for the first time on appeal from postconviction proceedings and to resolve jurisdictional and remedy issues; it affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for the circuit court to determine any additional credit and to appoint counsel on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Young) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to consider Young’s presentence-credit claim on appeal from dismissal of a successive postconviction petition | Appellate court had jurisdiction over the appeal but the credit claim was forfeited and not properly raised in prior proceedings | Credit claims can be raised on appeal and are not forfeited because section 5-4.5-100 creates a mandatory entitlement | Appellate court had jurisdiction over the appeal but properly refused to grant credit raised for first time on appeal; statutory language for custody credit does not include the "upon application" language that saved per diem claims in Woodard/Caballero |
| Whether presentence custody-credit claims under 730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-100 are exempt from procedural default like per diem monetary-credit claims under 725 ILCS 5/110-14 | Forfeiture applies; custody-credit statute lacks the "upon application" text and other indicia from Woodard/Caballero | Young: Section 5-4.5-100 is mandatory and lacks procedural limits, so courts should grant credit on appeal similar to Woodard/Caballero | Held that Woodard and Caballero do not control; because §5-4.5-100 lacks the "upon application" language, normal forfeiture rules apply and Young’s claim is procedurally defaulted |
| Whether Rule 615(b) or mittimus correction allowed appellate grant of additional credit despite procedural default | The judgment on appeal was the dismissal of the successive petition; Rule 615(b) cannot be used to address issues not properly before the court | Young: Rule 615(b) or motion to correct mittimus could be used to obtain credit on appeal | Court: Rule 615(b) and mittimus correction cannot be used to alter a sentencing judgment when the claim was not raised in the underlying postconviction petition; relief should be sought in circuit court |
| Remedy: Whether this Court should exercise supervisory authority to grant credit outright or remand for factual finding | State favored remand for circuit court finding because psychiatric-treatment credit is discretionary and factbound | Young sought direct award of 183 days credit or a rule change allowing credit claims any time | Court declined to award credit itself; exercised supervisory authority to remand to circuit court to determine custody/custodial treatment credit and ordered appointment of counsel on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Woodard, 175 Ill. 2d 435 (1997) (per diem monetary-credit statute construed as mandatory and cognizable on appeal without prior application)
- People v. Caballero, 228 Ill. 2d 79 (2008) (per diem credit is statutory relief outside Post-Conviction Act and appellate courts may grant it when record clearly shows entitlement)
- People v. Jones, 213 Ill. 2d 498 (2004) (appellate court cannot consider postconviction claims not raised in petition)
- People v. Vara, 2018 IL 121823 (2018) (appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review fines recorded by clerk that were not part of the circuit court’s sentencing judgment)