People v. MitchellPeople v. Mitchell
delivered the opinion of the court:
For two reasons, defendant, Claude Mitchell, appeals from the sentence the trial court imposed on him for forgery (
The five days represent the period that defendant spent in the county jail after sentencing but before his transfer to the Illinois Department of Corrections (DOC). It appears, however, from DOC’s official Web site, that DOC has given defendant credit for both the three days he was in custody before sentencing and the five days he was in custody after sentencing.
As for the monetary credit against his fines, it accrues only up to the date of sentencing. It follows that while defendant is entitled to monetary credit for the three days he was in custody before sentencing, he is not entitled to monetary credit for the five days he spent in jail after sentencing. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s judgment as modified to allow defendant a total monetary credit of $15 at the rate of $5 per day for three days.
I. BACKGROUND
On July 30, 2008, the State indicted defendant on three counts of forgery. Defendant was in custody from July 23 to July 25, 2008. On January 16, 2009, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of forgery committed June 18, 2008 (
According to a memorandum that the sheriff filed on March 27, 2009, defendant was in the county jail during two periods: July 23 to 25, 2008, and March 12 to 17, 2009. Thus, he was in jail for five days after the trial court sentenced him on March 12, 2009. According to DOC’s official Web site, he actually was transferred to DOC on March 17, 2009, but his “custody date” is March 9, 2009.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Credit Against the Sentence of Imprisonment.
On the authority of section 5 — 8—7(b) of the Unified Code of Corrections
Nevertheless, we decline defendant’s request to remand this case with directions to award of an additional five days of credit, because we have no reason to suppose that defendant has been denied such credit. According to the official Web site of DOC, his “admission date” is March 17, 2009, but his “custody date” is March 9, 2009. See People v. Monroe,
B. Monetary Credit Against the Fines
Defendant further argues that the Child Advocacy Center fee and drug-court fee are fines (see People v. Paige,
While a defendant may receive monetary credit under
III. CONCLUSION
Therefore, we modify the trial court’s judgment so as to allow defendant a credit of $15 against his fines. Otherwise, we affirm the judgment as modified.
Affirmed as modified.
MYERSCOUGH, EJ., and FOFE, J., concur.