from the Circuit Court of Macon County No. 15CF1123 Honorable
James R. Coryell, Judge Presiding.
Attorneys for Appellant: James E. Chadd, Jacqueline L.
Bullard, and Jessica L. Fangman of State Appellate
Defender's Office, of Springfield, for appellant.
Attorneys for Appellee: Jay Scott, State's Attorney, of
Decatur (Patrick Delfino, David J. Robinson, and Kathy
Shepard, of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's
Office, of counsel), for the People.
JUSTICE CAVANAGH delivered the judgment of the court, with
opinion. Justices Knecht and Turner concurred in the judgment
1 A jury found defendant, William E. Day, guilty of driving
under the combined influence of alcohol and cannabis (625
ILCS 5/11-501(a)(5) (West 2014)) and driving while his
driver's license was revoked (id. §
6-303(d-2)). The Macon County circuit court sentenced him to
concurrent terms of imprisonment.
2 Defendant appeals on five grounds.
3 First, he argues that the evidence is insufficient to
support the convictions. Our deferential standard of review
compels us to disagree.
4 Second, defendant claims that the prosecutor committed
plain error by repeatedly attempting to introduce hearsay in
the teeth of multiple sustained objections. The transcript of
the jury trial does not bear out that claim.
5 Third, defendant complains that the circuit clerk imposed
fines upon him that the trial court never imposed in its
sentence. We cannot legitimately take cognizance of the
clerk-imposed fines since they can be found only in a
"Payment Status Information" sheet, a document that
(contrary to our earlier ruling, which we rescind) does not
belong in the common-law record.
6 Fourth, defendant claims he is entitled to an additional
day of presentence credit. In part E of the opinion that we
issued in this appeal on January 22, 2019 (People v.
Day, 2019 IL App (4th) 160217, ¶¶ 65-69), we
addressed defendant's claim for the additional day of
presentence credit. On May 22, 2019, the supreme court denied
defendant's petition for leave to appeal but, in the
exercise of its supervisory authority, directed us to vacate
part E and remand this case to the circuit court, where,
pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 472 (eff. May 17,
2019), defendant may raise his claim for an additional day of
presentence credit. In this new version of our opinion, we
comply with the supervisory order.
7 Fifth, just as defendant claims he is entitled to an
additional day of presentence credit, he claims that, for the
same day, he is entitled to an additional $5 of monetary
credit against his fines. In part F of the previous version
of our opinion in this appeal, we addressed that claim as
well. See Day, 2019 IL App (4th) 160217,
¶¶ 70-73. In its supervisory order, the supreme
court directed us to vacate part F and to remand this case to
the circuit court for proceedings pursuant to Rule 472.
People v. Day, No. 124518 (Ill. May 22, 2019)
(supervisory order). Accordingly, in this new version of our
opinion, we do so.
8 Therefore, we affirm the convictions, and we affirm the
sentences except for the presentence credit and the fines; we
remand this case for further proceedings on defendant's
claims for an additional day of presentence credit and an
additional $5 of monetary credit against his fines, after
which the circuit court shall either leave the presentence
credit and fines unchanged or make adjustments, as the
9 I. BACKGROUND
10 A. The Jury Trial (January 20 to 21, 2016)
111. The Testimony of Joseph Herbert
12 On September 8, 2015, at about 9 p.m., a Macon County
deputy sheriff, Joseph Herbert, drove his squad car to the
intersection of Kruse Road and Illinois Route 121, south of
Mt. Zion, Illinois, to investigate a reported single-vehicle
13 At the southeast corner of the intersection, a black 1975
Chevrolet pickup truck had come to rest. Herbert took
photographs. The truck had "front[-]end damage to the
middle grill, bumper region," as if it had "struck
a tree or pole or something of that nature," and leaves
were entangled in the grill. The engine was off, but the
headlights were still on, and the key was in the ignition.
Nobody was in the truck or anywhere in sight. "On the
driver's seat floorboard[, ] there was a black cell phone
and one orange flip-flop."
14 About three-quarters of a mile north, in the 5400 block of
Kruse Road, a camper, or "topper," was on the
ground. It had sustained "extensive damage to the
front." "[O]nce it became separated from the
vehicle," it had "more or less collapsed on
itself." Herbert inferred that the 5400 block of Kruse
Road was the "original accident scene"-he found the
tree that the truck apparently had struck-and that,
"[a]fter the camper became separated from the vehicle,
the vehicle continued [south] from the accident scene."
15 About 57 minutes after Herbert arrived at the scene, a
call came in from a third party, requesting a welfare check
of "a white male" who was walking south on Illinois
Route 121, south of Herbert's location. Herbert sent
another deputy sheriff, Shane Wendell, to check on that man
and make sure he was all right. After a while, Wendell
returned with defendant, whose last known address was 1770
East Locust Street, Decatur, Illinois, about six to eight
miles away from the intersection of Kruse Road and Illinois
16 Defendant had "red bloodshot eyes." He was
shoeless, and his bare feet were muddy. A "strong odor
of [an] alcoholic beverage [was] coming from his
breath," and he "sway[ed] [from] side to side"
as Herbert talked with him. Wendell handed Herbert "a
small white tin," which Wendell had "located on
[defendant] prior to transporting him back to [the]
scene." Inside the tin was a "[s]mall amount of
green leafy substance," which field tested positive for
cannabis. Defendant admitted to Herbert that, before the
accident, he "consumed beer and smoked cannabis."
17 Because defendant appeared to have a cut on his upper lip,
Herbert asked him if he had suffered any injury in the
accident. Defendant answered no and explained that the sore
on his upper lip was herpes, which he had caught, he said,
from prostitutes. Herbert asked him if he had been the
driver. Defendant answered he had not. He said that, instead,
his friend Buddy Young had been the driver and that, after
the accident, Young had chosen to walk north on Illinois
Route 121 whereas he, defendant, had chosen to walk south.
Defendant was unable, however, to provide any description of
Young other than to say he was "a black male."
Herbert asked defendant how long he had known Young.
Defendant answered he did not know. Herbert asked defendant
where Young could be located. Defendant again answered he did
18 The prosecutor asked Herbert:
"Q. Did you ask him about the cell phone that was
located inside the vehicle?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. What was his response to that?
A. He said it was his phone.
Q. Did you ask him about the shoe that was found inside the
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And what was his response?
A. He said it was his ...