During the first week of the Illinois Supreme Court September session, the state argued that defendants given jail time for breaking the conditions of their pretrial release are not eligible for good conduct credit. 

In the People of Illinois v. Geoffrey P. Seymore, the defendant was charged with several drug-related offenses in 2024. The prosecution petitioned to have Seymore held while he awaited trial, but he was released on electric monitoring. Seymour then broke the conditions of his release by leaving his home. He was sanctioned by the court and ordered to serve 30 days in jail.  

As part of the sanction, the court ruled that good conduct credit, which reduces an inmate's sentence based on good behavior, could not be applied to his sentence.   

The defense appealed, with the appellate court ruling the circuit court had erred in the decision to not allow good-conduct credit to apply. Seymore had already served his 30 days by then, but the court still ruled in the case based on public interest.  

The state appealed the decision to the Illinois Supreme Court.  

Illinois Assistant Attorney General Lauren Schneider argued the appellate court lacked jurisdiction in their decision because it dealt with a sanction. She said the appellate court had jurisdiction when pretrial release was denied or revoked, but that had not happened in the case.  

Still, Schneider said they were still asking the court to rule on the merits of the case for use by Illinois courts in future cases. The state is asking the court to overturn the appellate court’s ruling.  

Schneider argued that the County Jail Good Behavior Allowance Act applied to jail sentences and said that a sanction is different from a sentence.  

“First, the plain and ordinary meaning of the term ‘sentence’ is not the same and is not interchangeable with the term ‘sanction’ by that term's plain and ordinary meaning,” she said. “Second, the act itself distinguishes between detention and jail pursuant to a sentence for an offense and detention in jail for failing to comply with conditions of pretrial release. And third and finally, a sanction order is not synonymous with a sentence imposed for criminal contempt.” 

Schneider went on to say that a sentence is imposed on someone who has been convicted of committing a criminal act, while a sanction is “a penalty or coercive measure that results from failure to comply with a law, rule or order.” Therefore, a person who has been sanctioned has not yet been convicted of committing a crime, and jail time earned as a result of a sanction would be different from a sentence.  

Justice Lisa Holder White questioned if the act explicitly excludes sanctions, which Schneider answered it does not.  

Schneider also said that the statute differentiates between time served in jail pretrial and incarceration in jail, with days served pretrial typically applied to the person sentenced post-conviction. She argued this was an instance of the General Assembly saying that a sentence is different from time served pretrial.  

Assistant State Appellate Defender Sam Steinberg argued that prior to the Pretrial Fairness Act becoming law, a court-imposed sanction was eligible for good-conduct credits.   

He said a jail term earned from disobeying a court order is in line with criminal contempt instead of civil contempt, which is excluded in the County Jail Good Behavior Allowance Act. He said because it’s more like criminal contempt, it should be eligible for good-conduct credits.  

Steinberg said civil contempt is typically the result of a discovery violation or hiding assets, and jail time is imposed to persuade the individual to follow the order. The jail time given is not always a fixed term.  

Holder White also questioned if there was a difference in the definition of sanction and sentence, asking Steinberg if there was a different process for someone to receive a sanction or sentence. Steinberg said no.  

Steinberg also argued that the point of the act is to encourage good behavior in prison, and that if the legislature wanted to exclude sanctions they could’ve done so.  

“You want incentive to comply with jail rules,” he said. “Jails are crowded places and they're dangerous. You want to encourage positive incentive, that's why the legislature created the behavior act.”   

In her rebuttal, Schneider added that it was the legislative intent of the General Assembly for someone who violates the conditions of pretrial release to serve 30–days. Therefore, allowing reductions would violate that intent.  

The Supreme Court’s September session continues Tuesday at 9 a.m.