Find Legal Information

Docket No. 98988-Agenda 7-May 2005.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS ex rel. JOSEPH E.
BIRKETT, Petitioner, v. ANN B. JORGENSEN, Respondent
Opinion filed September 22, 2005.

JUSTICE FREEMAN delivered the opinion of the court:

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 381(a) (188 Ill. 2d R. 381(a)),the State's Attorney of Du Page County filed a motion with this courtfor leave to file a complaint seeking a supervisory order or a writ ofmandamus. We granted the State leave to file the complaint. TheState seeks an order compelling the Honorable Ann Jorgensen, judgeof the circuit court of Du Page County (respondent), to order thatdefendant Juan Leon is ineligible for any good-behavior allowance.The question before us is whether a statutory requirement that adefendant "must serve a minimum term of imprisonment of 180 days"(see 625 ILCS 5/6-303(d-3) (West 2002)) is a "mandatory minimumsentence" for purposes of eligibility for a good-behavior allowanceunder the County Jail Good Behavior Allowance Act (the GoodBehavior Act) (730 ILCS 130/3 (West 2002)). For the reasons thatfollow, we answer this question in the affirmative.

BACKGROUND

In January 2004, Leon appeared before respondent and pledguilty to the offense of driving while license suspended (enhanced).See 625 ILCS 5/6-303(d-3) (West 2002). Because Leon had threeprevious convictions for the same offense, his conduct constituted aClass 4 felony, for which the Illinois Vehicle Code requires that he"must serve a minimum term of imprisonment of 180 days." 625 ILCS5/6-303(d-3) (West 2002). Respondent sentenced Leon to180 daysin jail and 24 months of probation.

The State argued that the court's order should provide that Leonwas not eligible for any good-behavior allowance. The State based itsargument on the Good Behavior Act, which provides in pertinent partthat "The good behavior of any person *** in a county jail *** shallentitle such person to a good behavior allowance, except that: *** (2)a person sentenced for an offense for which the law provides amandatory minimum sentence shall not receive any portion of a goodbehavior allowance that would reduce the sentence below themandatory minimum." 730 ILCS 130/3 (West 2002). The Statereasoned that because Leon only received a 180-day sentence, anygood-behavior allowance would reduce his sentence below the 180-day mandatory minimum, which would run afoul of the GoodBehavior Act.

Leon responded that it was ambiguous whether the "minimumterm of imprisonment" set out in section 6-303(d-3) of the VehicleCode was a "mandatory minimum sentence" within the meaning of theGood Behavior Act. Leon noted that, as a general rule, ambiguity incriminal statutes must be resolved in favor of the defendant.Therefore, Leon concluded, he must be permitted to earn good-conduct credit.

Respondent ruled in Leon's favor and refused to order that hewas ineligible for good-behavior credit. Respondent acknowledgedthat the legislative history indicated that the legislature intended theGood Behavior Act to preclude any good-behavior credit for Leon'scrime, but concluded that the legislature did not correctly articulate itsintent in the statute. In so ruling, respondent attached dispositivesignificance to the fact that the Vehicle Code referred to a "term ofimprisonment" which a defendant must serve, rather than a "sentence"which the court must impose.

As previously noted, the State instituted this original mandamusaction in this court to request that we compel respondent to changeher sentencing order. See 188 Ill. 2d R. 381(a).⁽¹⁾

ANALYSIS

Neither Leon nor respondent has filed any responsive brief.Nevertheless, as the factual record is brief and straightforward, andthe single issue can easily be resolved without any additional briefing,we will decide the case on the merits. See People ex rel. Director ofCorrections v. Booth, 215 Ill. 2d 416, 421-22 (2005); In re Marriageof Rogers, 213 Ill. 2d 129, 135 (2004).

This court has discretionary original jurisdiction in mandamusactions. Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI,