Appeal from Circuit Court of Vermilion County No. 11CF326 Honorable Craig H. DeArmond, Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE STEIGMANN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Presiding Justice Pope and Justice Turner concurred in the judgment and opinion.
¶ 1 In March 2015, defendant, Walter Jones, filed an unopposed motion for summary disposition, alleging he is entitled to credit for an additional 181 days served in custody under section 5-4.5-100(c) of the Unified Code of Corrections (Unified Code) (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-100(c) (West 2010)). In May 2015, in response to an order entered by this court, the State submitted a supplemental memorandum of law (1) conceding defendant is entitled to credit for 164 days served in custody but (2) opposing defendant's request for an additional 17 days credit against his sentence. For the reasons that follow, we deny defendant's motion.
¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND
¶ 3 In June 2011, defendant was arrested and charged by information in Vermilion County case No. 11-CF-326 with residential burglary (720 ILCS 5/19-3 (West 2010)) and burglary (720 ILCS 5/19-1(a) (West 2010)) for an incident that occurred that same month. Defendant did not post bond. In October 2011, a jury found defendant guilty of burglary. In December 2011, the trial court sentenced defendant to 30 months' probation subject to certain terms and conditions.
¶ 4 On January 22, 2013, defendant was arrested and charged in Vermilion County case No. 13-CF-45 with a theft offense. Defendant did not post bond.
¶ 5 In February 2013, the State filed a petition to revoke probation in case No. 11-CF-326, alleging defendant violated the terms of his probation by (1) failing to report to two scheduled office visits in 2012; (2) missing multiple curfew checks in 2012; and (3) admittedly using drugs on January 7, 2013. In April 2013, after a hearing on the petition, the trial court found the State met its burden with respect to allegation Nos. (1) and (3).
¶ 6 In July 2013, the trial court revoked defendant's probation herein in case No. 11-CF-326 and resentenced him to seven years' imprisonment, with credit for 201 days served in custody from June to December 2011. The court rejected defendant's request for credit for time served in custody on the 2013 theft charge in case No. 13-CF-45 (January to July 2013) because (1) the record did not indicate a warrant was issued or defendant was arrested on the petition to revoke, and (2) defendant would be entitled to credit in case No. 13-CF-45 and could not have it "count twice."
¶ 7 That same month, defendant filed a motion to reconsider sentence herein in case No. 11-CF-326, which was denied. Defendant filed a notice of appeal and the office of the State Appellate Defender (OSAD) was appointed to represent defendant.
¶ 8 Subsequent to his resentencing in case No. 11-CF-326, in November 2014, defendant's 2013 theft charge in case No. 13-CF-45 was nol-prossed.
¶ 9 In March 2015, defendant filed the unopposed motion for summary disposition, requesting we order the Circuit Clerk to issue a corrected sentencing judgment reflecting he is entitled to an additional credit for 181 days served in custody from January to July 2013. In April 2015, this court entered an order directing each party to submit a supplemental memorandum of law addressing whether defendant should receive credit for time served in custody between his arrest on the theft offense (case No. 13-CF-45) and filing of the petition to revoke his probation (case No. 11-CF-326). In May 2015, the State submitted a supplemental memorandum of law (1) conceding defendant is entitled to credit for time spent in custody between the filing of the State's petition to revoke and defendant's sentencing but (2) opposing defendant's request for credit prior to the filing of the petition to revoke.
¶ 10 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 11 Defendant argues he is entitled to credit for 181 days served in custody under section 5-4.5-100(c) of the Unified Code. 730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-100(c) (West 2010). Specifically, defendant argues under section 5-4.5-100(c) he "was arrested for theft, but prosecuted for violating his probation for conduct that occurred prior to his arrest [and] [s]ince the six months spent in custody on the theft charge was not ...