g your honour's erica c run from the illinois attorney general's office here on behalf of the people may please the court this court should reverse the appellate court's decision vacating the restitution order the defendant here receive the full benefit of her bargain with the state which included no promise as to what her sentence would be the appropriate remedy for the rule for zero two violation committed by the trial court and monitoring her is to allow defendant the opportunity to withdraw her play however since in this case defendant has already expressed that she does not want to withdraw her plea regardless as in this case to specifically perform a nonexistent term of the contract this gives defendants an undeserved when fall the appellate court's analysis would even apply to situations where there was absolutely no contract whatsoever with the state even to drop charges performance remedy that was promulgated by the score in with field it's only appropriate for benefit of the bargain claim such as the one in whitfield where the defendant pleaded guilty in exchange for the promise of a very specific sentence this is distinct from whether or not plea was knowing if the defendant is not fully informed of the possible penalties before she pleads guilty then her plea is not knowing and she can have the opportunity to withdraw her plea this puts the defendant in the same position that she was in before she pleaded guilty and that's sufficient to protect her due process rights unless the squire has any questions at this time i'll address the cross appeal sentencing issue on rebuttal if raised by th recall specifically what he said the possible penalties were for the criminal damage to property fact because there was an open plea there was no agreement as to what the sentence was the contract terms between the defendant and the state were fully put into the record at pages two and three of the report of the proceedings it was originally indicted on six charges and the deal with the state was she would plead guilty to intimidation and criminal damage and the state would dismiss the other charges including the most serious charges of attempted first degree murder that was the full extent of the plea bargain with the state that was put into the record that was understood between the parties and when the trial court was in marching to found that it did emphasize the fact that the fed understood there was no promise as to sentencing that's at page twelve of the report of proceedings so the fact that there it to sentencing means that whitfield's full analysis as to why specific performance is available as a remedy simply doesn't apply here the contract between the parties was fully performed the defendant pleaded guilty to the charges that she had agreed to plead guilty to the other charges were dropped that was the full extent of the contract adding in a specific performance remedy as to the restitution order is forcing the state to specifically perform a contract term that was never part of the contract the possible penalties but there is no agreement as to with the state as to what the sentence should be whitfield's analysis simply doesn't apply and therefore a defendant shouldn't be entitled to a specific performance remedy as she originally request i don't the world jenkins was never adopted by this court so it's certainly not a good law here i would argue that whitfield addressing that situation and not relying on jenkins his analysis which is very different from the will contact an means that jenkins is certainly not the law in the supreme court even within the fourth district it appears that that court has backed off from the jenkins analysis somewhat since jenkins i believe was a case that came out at least fifteen years ago and i don't believe that they have relied on it since just hear the term we hear it correct and in this case because defendant has already said she doesn't want to withdraw the plate that means that there's sure there should not be any remedy available to her please the court counsel i'm attorney sam snyder representing the apple in this case and defendant as stated by counsel what we're here today to do today is to settle a split in the lower courts and this is a split that doesn't just deal with with field but deals with the another line of cases that one of the justices had referred to that being the jenkins case were to hear to decide the proper remedy in a trial court's improper  regarding restitution and a partially negotiated plea before entering into that plebiscite or face six charges as stated by counsel or were dismissed she pled openly to to the class three felony intimidation a class four for criminal damage to property in which she was extended on both of those before accepting the plea the trial judge did advise miss signer of the possible maximum and minimum penalties with regard to the penitentiary sentence as well as as well as advising her of the possibility of probation on both of those charges but the court failed to address any issue regarding any monetary penalty not only did it not discuss the possibility of restitution it didn't even mention the possibility that a fine could be imposed so any imposition of a financial penalty above zero dollars would work and on justice and a a direct consequence she relied on this this the state is saying that there is no agreement whatsoever but that's not exactly true she didn't go to trial and lose and then face whatever consequences the court decides decided it would impose under the law  if that happened then the defendant wouldn't be advised of anything they go to trial and they lose and their sentenced here the miss snyder was advised of what could happen now counsel is correct in stating that the court did verify that all sentencing options were on the table but then it went through and specifically mention what those possibilities were but failed to mention the possibility of restitution or a fine so what if you or it was presented as a partial plea and that is actually set forth in the record and it's the plea agreement actually states a partial plea so it's partially negotiate it's not fully negotiated in the sense of the whitfield case where you know exactly you know that you're going to face x y and z and that's going to be your punishment here you're facing a myriad of possibilities it's basically a sentencing range so it's not completely blind it's ok well it could be x y and z oh and by the way we're going to throw in something else at sentencing and that's exactly what happened here and if the court follows the analysis and in the jenkins case as well as the all of of the jackson line of cases that originated out of the first district jackson being decided in one thousand nine hundred eighty three then the court would conclude that a there is a violation of due process because are the state can argue that this that no prejudice resulted from sample there is a case that talks about change in sits a fourth district case it's  thompson out of two thousand and seven that distinguishes change jenkin excuse me change in some why but doesn't repeal that case does it say that that case is a good law but it basically holds that  well if you're if the trial judge for example on a class four felony says that ok you can face up to a fine of twenty five thousand dollars and the court imposes restitution say in the amount of five thousand dollars then no prejudice resulted because you knew you were going to get hit with something and as long as the restitution doesn't go beyond twenty five thousand dollars there's no prejudice and so that's how it distinguished jane can see what the it didn't say that the implied promise theory that had been adopted or  promulgated by jackson in one nine hundred seventy three that that wasn't good law it is still good law and i think it's analogous to whitfield in the sense that there are there's an expectation as to what is supposed to happen in whitfield the expectation is is exact in this chain can sign of cases in jackson and wills winger and colp all of those being cited in the briefs those all deal with or primarily deal with partial pleas a couple of them deal with petitions to revoke where the person was advised to what could happen if their probation is violated in in the winger case the person was advised that he could face one to three years in prison  he received two years probation and sometime thereafter the state filed a p t r and the judge sentenced him to thirty two to ninety six months so well beyond what was stated as a possible that there is a reason that the parties entered into this partial plea and if that if the court has reviewed the original charges that were set forth in the record there's of attempt murder armed violence possession of weapon by a felon as well as the other two charges who are to discuss it not it's not always in the best interest of the client to try to undo these sorts of deals but it's not i was in the interim best interest of the state either there's a reason that these charges were dismissed and that's a lot of those things or are outside the record those are things that we can only speculate as to why sometimes it's because witnesses are unavailable they don't separate charging division and then the actual trial attorneys who try the case they they didn't actually they didn't file those charges they're relying on what the charging attorney does so they receive these cases and these cases may be supported supported by the evidence and sometimes the charges aren't and that's reflected in a lot of these deals and it was reflected i believe in this case with this partial plea there was enough evidence to show intimidation with the knife but not enough to show that this that my client attempted to murder someone there's enough evidence to show that she carved up a vehicle and could commit a criminal damage to property but perhaps not the armed violence charge and it's we think it's our position that what the state's arguing essentially is to throw the baby out with the bathwater ok whenever a judge makes a mistake and even the best judges do make mistakes they they go through that sometimes are filling in for as in this case there are two there's two regular felony  judges assigned in peoria and when there's a conflict then it's assigned to another judge and sometimes that judge isn't always up on what the list of you know items is that he's supposed to admonish a defendant on in sentencing but there is a r restitution as part of a sentence and wasn't able to sense that you're you're the defendant to restitution but rather did manage with respect to restitution right so the appellate court in this case employ ok you don't admonish on it we knock it out why isn't a better solution say well already been admonished you're going to get another bite at the apple you can move to withdraw your plea well there's public policy concerns that come into play is that so your position my specific question is i know pretty long winded is why is it not a windfall for defendant under what the with what the appellate court did in this well i'm not saying that it's not a windfall but it can be a detriment to i think there's two ways to look at aspect of it so right there is a bargain bargain for exchange so speaking contract law but here you can you can kind of draw the analogy to whitfield and following with the chain can sign that there's still an implied promise that person realize to their detriment i want the judge tells him or her at sentencing and when the sense isn't what is stated then there's a violation of that implied promise here in the judge saying that this can't happen here that you're  simultaneously that the he gives an incomplete admonition and then looks at the sheet of paper as to a complete list and said oh i forgot to give tell you that you may be sentenced the rest to shoot as well if the defendant would say i'm not going with their deal i didn't know anything about restitution right there would be a vacate your of the plea there could be or the defendant could choose door b which is just to modify the sense to bring in conformity with expectations what i'm or gene is that the court provide a defendant with both possibilities as it did in what field i think i concern is under what legal framework he would feel has a very developed only detrimental reliance on an implied promise so yes that that's what you have to rethink the whole idea is about whether or not admissions by the judge are in fact an offer and a contract sent yes to any of our cases talk that way about please besides whitfield i'm not aware of any possibly morris but that i was it was in a different situation that would kill case is about plea not completely analogous now because like i said i you have for negotiating and hear the term set forth as opposed to a range of terms but i'd submit that the contract principle still apply to both scenarios the only time it would apply is if a person goes to trial and loses and then they get what they're going to get within the bounds of the law presumably here if we don't agree that there's a contract here then are we left with whether she other than the knowingly and calls only in light of the defendant is not going to get with the judge set right he's not going to get what the judge said there's emotionally brought in this court with respect to him in davis or would he have you to  issue the proper sentence because you made a mistake i mean where we left was whatever the judge says even outside the sentence rob just asking that as an example and using that as an example where we have defend say rely to their debt detriment on statements made by the judge as to what their sentence is going to be and then that's not what they receive then yes that's the proper remedy is to in one case i can but let me understand th so if the judge says by the way the ranges five to ten and it's ten twenty and the judge sentences of five years and it's an improper sentence there's no prejudice in that instance the reason i don't think so doesn't have five years years ten years that's exactly what happened in jackson in one nine hundred seventy three that that range was i believe one to ten and it was stated that it was wonder five and there was a p t are filed that relates to the sentence that sentence on the class three intimidation myside or was sentenced to the maximum extent a term on that now set for sentencing hearing was held in various arguments were made and evidence  deuced and some of the things the court heard was testimony regarding a love triangle between my client a victim by the name of jessica king and gentleman by the name of corey simmons testimony educe was that they  my client was involved in a relationship and pregnant by corey segments jessica king was also involved romantically with this corey simmons and there have been prior incidents of violence between my client and  and this jessica king and on one actually a deuced at the hearing there had been a trial where charges were filed against my client previously she was acquitted but essentially the facts were that this this lady jessica king had with a small mob of people attacked my client with a baseball bat self defense was what was asserted at trial and she was vindicated and exonerated of that charge with that in mind my client in this incident  mr simmons house her lover and finds this jessica king the person who had attacked her with a mob with baseball bats earlier and in her pregnant state knowing that this person attacked her and feeling the emotions and probably a sense of betrayal that she did at that time pulled out of a steak knife and carved up the convertible top of jessica king and jessica instead of leaving or call excuse me calling the police and trying to avoid an al confronted her and that's what led to the intimidation charge where a knife was wheeled in jessica's presence i believe that the trial judge did not properly weigh the factors in mitigation in this case namely that no excusable conduct ins in the sense that she committed a crime with intimidation but because of these other factors in the background between these two girls in the love triangle that they not all the parties were were without fault and i don't think that the judge properly weighed those factors in mitigation one it gave her the very next on the extended term on this i fitted weight any mitigation then anything it would have given a sentence short of the maximum it noted mitigation and then did nothing with it would like to begin by briefly addressing the sentencing issue before moving back to whitfield all of the arguments that defendant has raised against her supposedly excessive sentence were fully considered and rejected by the trial  court her criminal history was fairly considered and the criminal history shows that in addition to the tense relationship between her and jessica king when defendant committed this crime she was on mandatory supervised release and probation from her previous attack on jessica king in which she had just pickings car on fire the trial court considered that despite her previous crimes he had given her a life sentence oh excuse me a light sentence on the arson conviction but the fact that she then went on commit this crime very soon after being released from prison on the arson conviction showed that she had not learned from that opportunity and that it was necessary to give her an extended term sentence under this court's precedent in people v alexander where the trial court has considered the pre sentence report the arguments of counsel and the defendant's state a statement an allocution sense is not an abuse of discretion and it's not appropriate for the appellate court to weigh the sentencing factors as defendant asks this court to do like to briefly address the whitfield issue with fields holding up the contract analysis is based on the combination of two factors first the fact that mr whitfield had a closed plea for a very specific sentence of twenty five years and the fact that the specific performance was new and novel and one can see that from looking at this court's prior precedent before whitfield this court had found that plea withdrawal or the opportunity to withdraw the plea was sufficient to protect the defendant's rights in situations where there was a faulty a she's not withdrawn her pleas because she thinks this is a good decision she's better off keeping the plea intact than she is withdrawing the plea and potentially having to go to trial trial courts don't bargain with defendants when they're giving these the parties bargain with that the parties bargain between the two of them this is supported by the text of supreme court rule four zero two d two and d two and three the parties bargain and then tell the trial court what the terms of the bargain are going to be  reduce the plea agreements oral terms to a written contract that was done here in this case the full terms of the plea agreement were on the record at pages two and three there is no agreement as to certain saying and therefore defendant cannot expect that she would receive specific performance of a nonexistent term of that contract therefore this court should reverse that hell course decision as to the restitution and affirm the appellate court's decision that the sentence was not excessive if the court has no further questions thank you you case number one eleven three eighty two agenda number seven was taken under advisement and people versus snyder thank you