People v. Harland

April 9, 1998

Nos. 3--96--1093
(Consolidated with No. 3--96--1094)
_________________________________________________________________

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

THIRD DISTRICT

A.D., 1998

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
ILLINOIS, ) for the 14th Judicial Circuit
) Rock Island County, Illinois,
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
)
v. ) No. 93--CF--854, 94--CF--1082
)
VINCENT HARLAND, ) Honorable
) James Teros,
Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding.
_________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE SLATER delivered the opinion of the court:
_________________________________________________________________

The defendant, Vincent Harland, was convicted of unlawful
possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver (720
ILCS 570/401 (West 1992)), unlawful possession of a weapon by a
felon (720 ILCS 5/24--1.1 (West 1992)), unlawful possession of
cannabis (720 ILCS 550/4 (West 1992)), and obstruction of justice
(720 ILCS 5/31--4 (West 1994)). He was sentenced to concurrent
prison terms of 8 years, 4 years and 30 days for the possession
with intent to deliver, possession of a weapon, and possession of
cannabis charges. In addition, he was sentenced to a consecutive
term of three years' imprisonment for the obstruction of justice
charge. Judgment on these convictions was entered in February
1995.
On August 7, 1995, the defendant was sentenced to two prison
terms by a court in Iowa. These terms were to run consecutively
to each other and totalled 15 years. The mittimus was issued by
the Iowa court on August 21, 1995. On September 15, 1995, the
defendant filed pro se motions in Illinois asking the court to
order his Iowa and Illinois sentences to be served concurrently.
The trial court found that his motion was not timely, and denied
it.
The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court properly
ruled that the defendant's motion was barred by the passage of
time.
Section 5--8--4(a) of the Unified Code of Corrections
provides that when a defendant, previously convicted and sen-
tenced to prison in Illinois, is subsequently convicted and sen-
tenced to prison in another state, the defendant may petition the
Illinois court for an order requiring that his sentences be
served concurrently. 730 ILCS 5/5--8--4(a) (West 1996). In
order to be eligible for this consideration, the defendant must
apply to the Illinois court within 30 days after the sentence
imposed in the other jurisdiction is "finalized." 730 ILCS 5/5--
8--4(a) (West 1996). In Iowa, a judgment of conviction is final
when the sentence is pronounced. State v. Sullivan, 326 N.W.2d 361 (Iowa 1982).
According to Iowa law, the defendant's conviction was
"final" when his sentence was pronounced--August 7, 1995. The
defendant was required to file his motion with the Illinois court
within 30 days of that date, or September 6, 1995. The defendant
did not file his motion until September 15, 1995. Thus, the
motion was untimely.
The defendant contends that the Iowa judgment was not final
until the mittimus was issued. We disagree. As the court out-
lined in State v. Orte, 540 N.W.2d 435 (Iowa 1995), the mittimus
is not part of the judgment. It is the method by which the
judgment is executed. Of necessity, then, the judgment must be
final before the mittimus is issued.
In short, we hold that the defendant's Iowa conviction was
final on August 7, 1995. Thereafter, the defendant failed to
file his motion for concurrent sentences within 30 days. The
trial court thus lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion and
properly denied it.
The judgment of the circuit court of Rock Island County is
affirmed.
Affirmed.