Title: People v. Hall

State: illinois

Issuer: Illinois Supreme Court

Document:

Docket No. 98225-Agenda 3-May 2005.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, 
Appellee, v. 							MICHAEL E. HALL, Appellant.
Opinion filed December 15, 2005.
	JUSTICE KILBRIDE delivered the opinion of the court:
	Defendant, Michael E. Hall, filed a postconviction petition
alleging his guilty plea to the offense of aggravated kidnapping was
involuntary. The circuit court of Macon County dismissed defendant's
petition at the second stage of the proceedings, and the appellate court
affirmed the circuit court's judgment. No. 4-02-0741 (unpublished
order under Supreme Court Rule 23). We allowed defendant's
petition for leave to appeal. 177 Ill. 2d R. 315(a).
	On appeal to this court, defendant contends: (1) the Sex Offender
Registration Act (Registration Act) (730 ILCS 150/1 et seq. (West
2002)) and the Sex Offender and Child Murderer Community
Notification Law (Notification Law) (730 ILCS 152/101 et seq. (West
2002)) are unconstitutional as applied to him because there is no
evidence that his offense was sexually motivated; and (2) the trial
court erred in dismissing his postconviction petition because he
established a substantial showing that his guilty plea was involuntary.
We conclude defendant's petition established a substantial showing
that his guilty plea was involuntary and, therefore, we need not reach
his claims concerning the constitutionality of the Registration Act and
Notification Law. We reverse the judgments of the appellate and
circuit courts, and remand this matter to the circuit court for an
evidentiary hearing on defendant's postconviction claims.
I. BACKGROUND
	The State charged defendant by information with aggravated
kidnapping, theft of property having a value in excess of $300, and
aggravated unlawful refusal to obey an order to stop. 720 ILCS
5/10-2(a)(2), 16-1(a)(1)(A) (West 1998); 625 ILCS
5/4-103.2(a)(7)(A) (West 1998). The trial court appointed counsel to
represent defendant. The parties subsequently entered into a
negotiated plea agreement requiring defendant to plead guilty to
aggravated kidnapping in exchange for dismissal of the other counts
and the State's recommendation of six years' imprisonment. At the
plea hearing, the trial court admonished defendant as follows:
			"THE COURT: Mr. Hall, Count I charges you with the
offense of Aggravated Kidnapping on April 15th, 1999 in
Macon County. It alleges that you knowingly and secretly
confined *** a child under the age of 13 years, against her
will. Do you understand what the charge is?
			THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
			THE COURT: Are you at this time offering to enter a plea
of guilty?
			THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
			THE COURT: Are you doing this of your own free will?
			THE DEFENDANT: Yes."
	The trial court then advised defendant of the minimum and
maximum penalties for aggravated kidnapping. The court also
admonished defendant that his guilty plea would result in waiver of his
privilege against self-incrimination and his rights to a trial, to call
witnesses, and to confront the witnesses against him.
	In the factual basis for the charge, the prosecutor asserted
defendant entered a vehicle while it was left running at a gas station.
The owners' 21-month-old daughter was in a car seat inside the car.
According to the prosecutor, defendant "drove the car off the lot at
a very high rate of speed. Officers pursued for a substantial distance.
The car was finally stopped at Wood and Martin Luther King Drive
when he wrecked the car. The child was not injured."
	The trial court accepted the plea, dismissed the remaining counts,
and sentenced defendant to six years' imprisonment. After defendant
was sentenced, his attorney asserted there were "mitigating factors."
According to counsel, defendant believed it was in his best interest to
plead guilty, but did not admit he was guilty of the offense.
	Defendant later filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
The trial court reappointed defendant's trial counsel to represent him.
At the hearing on the motion, defendant was allowed a recess to speak
with his attorney. When the case was recalled, defendant's attorney
informed the court that defendant wished to withdraw his motion.
Upon questioning by the trial court, defendant confirmed he wished
to withdraw his motion of his own free will. Defendant did not appeal
the trial court's judgment.
	Defendant subsequently filed a pro se petition under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Act) (725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq. (West
2000)), alleging his guilty plea was not entered knowingly,
intelligently, or voluntarily. Defendant alleged, among other things, he
informed his attorney that he did not know the child was in the
backseat of the car until after he wrecked the vehicle. Counsel advised
defendant he did not have a valid defense to aggravated kidnapping
based on his lack of awareness that the child was inside the car.
Defendant also alleged his attorney stated defendant would be
convicted and sentenced to at least 25 years' imprisonment if he
insisted on having a trial. Defendant further alleged that the trial court
failed to admonish him properly to ensure his guilty plea was
voluntary and that the factual basis for the plea was insufficient.
Defendant attached a copy of the charging instrument, the transcript
of the guilty plea hearing, and his affidavit to his postconviction
petition.
	In his affidavit, defendant asserted he was using a pay phone in
a gas station parking lot in an effort to get a ride home. When he was
unable to contact anyone to provide transportation, he went across the
street to seek shelter from the rain. Defendant attested he had been
drinking heavily for several hours and was agitated due to his inability
to find a ride home.
	He was crossing the street to use the pay phone again when he
observed a car being parked in front of the gas station. The driver
exited the car and went into the gas station, but left the car running.
It appeared there was no one inside the vehicle. Defendant entered the
vehicle, drove away, and subsequently ran into a car that was stopped
in front of him. Defendant opened the door of the vehicle, but could
not exit because his foot was caught on something. He then saw "the
reflection of police lights." Defendant asserted he looked in the
rearview mirror, but "the images were all a blur." When he turned to
look out the rear window, defendant observed a child in the rear seat.
	Defendant described in detail two separate conversations with his
appointed attorney following his arrest. Defendant asserted he
informed his attorney that he only intended to take the car and he did
not know the child was inside. Counsel repeatedly informed defendant
that his lack of awareness of the child was not a defense to the charge
of aggravated kidnapping. Counsel also informed defendant he would
be convicted and most likely sentenced to a term of 25 years or more
if he insisted on a trial. Defendant stated he was convinced by counsel
that he did not have a defense to this charge and his guilty plea was
induced by his attorney's advice.
	The trial court reviewed the petition, docketed it for further
consideration, and appointed counsel to represent defendant.
Defendant filed an amended petition with the assistance of counsel. In
his amended petition, defendant repeated his pro se claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel and trial court error. Additionally,
defendant alleged his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise
him that he would be required to register as a sex offender as a result
of his guilty plea to the offense of aggravated kidnapping.
	The State moved to dismiss the petition, asserting defendant
failed to make a substantial showing of a constitutional violation.
Following a hearing, the trial court granted the State's motion to
dismiss.
	On appeal, defendant argued the trial court erred in dismissing his
petition at the second stage because he made a substantial showing
that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant also
asserted the trial court failed to ensure his guilty plea was not the
result of threats or coercion. Defendant further argued the
Registration Act is unconstitutional as applied to him on due process
and equal protection grounds.
	The appellate court noted the charging instrument alleged
knowledge as an element of aggravated kidnapping. Additionally, the
trial court informed defendant that knowledge is an element of the
offense. Based on these facts, the appellate court found defendant was
aware that knowledge is an element of the offense. The appellate
court, therefore, held defendant could not establish a claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel because he could not show he was
prejudiced by the alleged erroneous advice of his attorney. The
appellate court also found defendant was not prejudiced by the trial
court's failure to inquire whether his guilty plea was due to threats or
coercion. The appellate court further held application of the
Registration Act to defendant did not result in violation of his
constitutional rights. The appellate court, therefore, affirmed the
judgment of the circuit court. No. 4-02-0741 (unpublished order
under Supreme Court Rule 23). We allowed defendant's petition for
leave to appeal. 177 Ill. 2d R. 315(a).
II. ANALYSIS
	On appeal to this court, defendant initially argues the Registration
Act and the Notification Law are unconstitutional as applied to him.
Defendant also contends his postconviction petition made a substantial
showing that his guilty plea was involuntary. We will first address the
latter issue, the voluntariness of defendant's guilty plea, because its
resolution renders unnecessary any consideration of the
constitutionality of the Registration Act and Notification Law. It is
fundamental that courts should not address issues involving the
constitutionality of a statute unless it is necessary to decide the case.
Turcol v. Pension Board of Trustees of the Matteson Police Pension
Fund, 214 Ill. 2d 521, 524 (2005), citing Vuagniaux v. Department of
Professional Regulation, 208 Ill. 2d 173, 184 (2003).
	Before addressing the merits of defendant's postconviction claim
that his guilty plea was involuntary, we must first address a procedural
issue raised by the State. The State argues the dismissal of defendant's
petition should be affirmed because he failed to support his claims
with affidavits, records, or other evidence as required by section
122-2 of the Act (725 ILCS 5/122-2 (West 2000)). Defendant replies
the documents attached to his pro se petition are sufficient to comply
with section 122-2.
	A postconviction petition must be verified by affidavit. 725 ILCS
5/122-1(b) (West 2000). The allegations in the petition must also be
supported by affidavits, records, or other evidence. 725 ILCS 5/122-2
(West 2000). If this documentation is not attached, the petition must
explain why it is unavailable. 725 ILCS 5/122-2 (West 2000).
	The State cites People v. Collins, 202 Ill. 2d 59 (2002), in
support of its contention that the dismissal should be affirmed for
failure to attach sufficient supporting documentation. In Collins, the
defendant filed a pro se postconviction petition after he was convicted
of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. Collins,
202 Ill. 2d  at 61-62. The defendant alleged his trial counsel failed to
assist the defendant in filing an appeal and seeking a reduction of the
sentence. Collins, 202 Ill. 2d  at 62. The defendant attached a sworn
verification of his petition, but did not attach any other supporting
documentation. Collins, 202 Ill. 2d  at 62. The circuit court summarily
dismissed the defendant's petition as frivolous and patently without
merit. Collins, 202 Ill. 2d  at 62.
	On review, this court noted that, contrary to the requirements of
section 122-2, the defendant's petition was not supported by
documentation and did not explain the absence of such
documentation. Collins, 202 Ill. 2d  at 66. This court held the
defendant's failure to comply with section 122-2 justified the
summary dismissal of his petition. Collins, 202 Ill. 2d  at 66.
	We find Collins is not applicable in this case. Collins involved
summary dismissal of the defendant's petition at the first stage of the
proceedings for failure to comply with section 122-2. In contrast, this
case has proceeded beyond the first stage of the proceedings.
Moreover, Collins is factually distinguishable. Unlike the defendant in
Collins, defendant here supported his petition with the transcript of
the guilty plea hearing, a copy of the charging instrument, and an
affidavit setting forth in detail the alleged misrepresentations of his
attorney.
	We recognize this court has stated that the purpose of section
122-2 is to show a defendant's postconviction allegations are capable
of objective or independent corroboration. Collins, 202 Ill. 2d  at 67.
Failure to attach independent corroborating documentation or explain
its absence may, nonetheless, be excused where the petition contains
facts sufficient to infer that the only affidavit the defendant could have
furnished, other than his own sworn statement, was that of his
attorney. See Collins, 202 Ill. 2d  at 68, quoting People v. Williams,
47 Ill. 2d 1, 4 (1970).
	Here, defendant's explanation for the absence of additional
documentation can easily be inferred from the allegations of his
petition and affidavit. In these filings, defendant described in detail his
consultations with his attorney. Defendant referred only to himself and
counsel in these descriptions and did not mention the presence of
anyone else. These allegations indicate counsel's legal advice was
rendered within the bounds of a private consultation between
defendant and his attorney. This implication is strengthened because
attorney-client consultations generally occur in private to protect the
confidentiality of privileged information. See Illinois Education Ass'n
v. Illinois State Board of Education, 204 Ill. 2d 456, 467 (2003)
(communications must be made in confidence to maintain the
attorney-client privilege). Thus, the circumstances of this case permit
a reasonable inference that the only people present during this
consultation were defendant and his attorney. Given these
circumstances, the only affidavit defendant could have furnished to
support his allegations, other than his own, was that of his attorney.
As noted in Williams, the "difficulty or impossibility of obtaining such
an affidavit is self-apparent." Williams, 47 Ill. 2d  at 4. Accordingly,
we conclude the documentation attached to defendant's petition is
sufficient to comply with the Act.
	On the merits, defendant contends the trial court erred in
dismissing his petition because he made a substantial showing that his
guilty plea was involuntary. In support of this claim, defendant asserts
his petition showed his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance in
advising him that he did not have a valid defense to aggravated
kidnapping based on his lack of knowledge that the child was inside
the car. Defendant also argues his attorney pressured him to plead
guilty by stating he would be convicted and sentenced to 25 years'
imprisonment if he insisted on going to trial.
	In response, the State contends the information and trial court
admonitions put defendant on notice that knowledge is an element of
the offense. Therefore, defendant cannot show he was prejudiced by
the alleged advice of his attorney. The State also argues defendant
cannot show counsel was incorrect in advising defendant that he
would be convicted and sentenced to 25 years' imprisonment if he
went to trial.
	The dismissal of a postconviction petition is warranted at the
second stage of the proceedings only when the allegations in the
petition, liberally construed in light of the trial record, fail to make a
substantial showing of a constitutional violation. People v. Coleman,
183 Ill. 2d 366, 382 (1998). At that stage, all factual allegations that
are not positively rebutted by the record are accepted as true. People
v. Childress, 191 Ill. 2d 168, 174 (2000). The dismissal of a
postconviction petition without an evidentiary hearing is reviewed de
novo. Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d  at 388-89.
	A challenge to a guilty plea alleging ineffective assistance of
counsel is subject to the standard set forth in Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984).
People v. Rissley, 206 Ill. 2d 403, 457 (2003) (citing Hill v. Lockhart,
474 U.S. 52, 57, 88 L. Ed. 2d 203, 209, 106 S. Ct. 366, 369-70
(1985), and People v. Huante, 143 Ill. 2d 61, 67 (1991)). Under
Strickland, a defendant must establish that counsel's performance fell
below an objective standard of reasonableness and the defendant was
prejudiced by counsel's substandard performance. People v. Lawton,
212 Ill. 2d 285, 302 (2004).
	An attorney's conduct is deficient if the attorney failed to ensure
that the defendant's guilty plea was entered voluntarily and
intelligently. Rissley, 206 Ill. 2d  at 457, citing Huante, 143 Ill. 2d  at
69. As charged in this case, aggravated kidnapping is defined as
knowingly and secretly confining a child under 13 years of age against
the child's will. 720 ILCS 5/10-2(a)(2) (West 1998). Knowing
conduct is performed "wilfully." 720 ILCS 5/4-5 (West 1998). Taken
as true, defendant's factual allegation that he did not know the child
was inside the vehicle constitutes a defense to the charge of
aggravated kidnapping. The alleged advice of defendant's attorney to
the contrary was clearly erroneous. Thus, defendant's petition
establishes a substantial showing that his attorney's advice was
objectively unreasonable.
	To establish the prejudice prong of an ineffective assistance of
counsel claim in these circumstances, the defendant must show there
is a reasonable probability that, absent counsel's errors, the defendant
would have pleaded not guilty and insisted on going to trial. Rissley,
206 Ill. 2d  at 457, quoting Hill, 474 U.S.  at 59, 88 L. Ed. 2d  at 210,
106 S. Ct.  at 370. A bare allegation that the defendant would have
pleaded not guilty and insisted on a trial if counsel had not been
deficient is not enough to establish prejudice. Rissley, 206 Ill. 2d  at
458-59. Rather, the defendant's claim must be accompanied by either
a claim of innocence or the articulation of a plausible defense that
could have been raised at trial. Rissley, 206 Ill. 2d  at 459-60, quoting
United States v. LaBonte, 70 F.3d 1396, 1413 (1st Cir. 1995), rev'd
on other grounds, 520 U.S. 751, 137 L. Ed. 2d 1001, 117 S. Ct. 1673
(1997). Under Hill, the question of whether counsel's deficient
representation caused the defendant to plead guilty depends in large
part on predicting whether the defendant likely would have been
successful at trial. People v. Pugh, 157 Ill. 2d 1, 15 (1993), citing
Hill, 474 U.S.  at 59, 88 L. Ed. 2d  at 210, 106 S. Ct.  at 370-71.
	Defendant alleged he was induced to plead guilty by his
attorney's advice that he had no defense to the charge of aggravated
kidnapping. As noted, defendant had a defense based on his assertion
that he did not know the child was inside the car. The State argues
that defendant's claim that he was unaware of the child's presence
"strains belief." This argument is misplaced because credibility
determinations are not made at the second stage of the proceedings.
See Childress, 191 Ill. 2d  at 174. Further, the State assumed the truth
of defendant's factual allegations by moving to dismiss his petition.
See People v. Harris, 206 Ill. 2d 1, 53-54 (2002). Defendant's
allegations, taken as true, clearly constitute a plausible defense to
aggravated kidnapping. Moreover, as defense counsel stated at the
plea hearing, defendant did not admit he was guilty of the offense.
Defendant's allegations also support a claim of innocence of
aggravated kidnapping. See Rissley, 206 Ill. 2d  at 459-60. Thus, we
conclude defendant has established a reasonable probability that he
would have pleaded not guilty and insisted on a trial absent counsel's
deficient advice.
	The State, nonetheless, argues defendant was not prejudiced by
his attorney's advice because the record shows he was aware that
knowledge is an element of the offense based on the information and
the trial court's admonitions at the plea hearing. Defendant replies that
the trial court's admonitions were insufficient to overcome the
prejudice of his attorney's repeated warnings that he did not have a
defense to the charge of aggravated kidnapping.
	Although the trial court's admonitions cannot be disregarded as
a mere formality, they are not sufficient in every circumstance to
negate the effect of erroneous advice from defense counsel. See
People v. Morreale, 412 Ill. 528, 533-34 (1952). In Morreale, the
defendant pleaded guilty after his attorney advised him not to " 'worry
about anything; plead guilty and you will get probation.' " Morreale,
412 Ill.  at 530. At a subsequent sentencing hearing, the State did not
oppose probation. Morreale, 412 Ill.  at 531. The defendant was,
nevertheless, sentenced to a term of 5 to 10 years' imprisonment.
Morreale, 412 Ill.  at 529.
	On review, this court found the defendant was induced to plead
guilty while in a state of confusion and misapprehension due to the
"hurried consultations" that occurred immediately prior to the guilty
plea. Morreale, 412 Ill.  at 532-33. Additionally, the prosecutor
exerted pressure to dispose of the matter and have defense counsel's
associate represent the defendant at the plea hearing, thus depriving
the defendant of the counsel of his choice. Morreale, 412 Ill.  at 533.
Based on all of the circumstances, this court held the defendant's
guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary. Morreale, 412 Ill.  at 533.
Further, although the trial court "fully and properly" admonished the
defendant concerning the potential consequences of his guilty plea, the
admonitions were insufficient to overcome counsel's erroneous advice
that the defendant would be given probation. Morreale, 412 Ill.  at
533-34.
	More recently, this court considered other cases raising the issue
of whether a trial court's admonitions were sufficient to overcome the
prejudice to a defendant as a result of an attorney's erroneous advice.
See People v. Ramirez, 162 Ill. 2d 235 (1994); People v. Jones, 144 Ill. 2d 242 (1991). In Ramirez, the defendant alleged his attorney
stated he had worked out an agreement with the judge and the
defendant would be sentenced to two years' probation. Ramirez, 162 Ill. 2d  at 240. The defendant plead guilty and was sentenced to a five-year term of imprisonment. Ramirez, 162 Ill. 2d  at 237. The defendant
subsequently filed a postconviction petition claiming his guilty plea
was involuntary because it was based on his attorney's
misrepresentation. Ramirez, 162 Ill. 2d  at 240.
	Similarly, in Jones, the defendant alleged his attorney pressured
him to plead guilty by suggesting the judge would not impose the
death penalty because he owed the attorney a favor. Jones, 144 Ill. 2d 
at 262. The defendant pled guilty and was ultimately sentenced to
death. Jones, 144 Ill. 2d  at 249. The defendant filed a postconviction
petition asserting his guilty plea was involuntary due to the erroneous
advice of his attorney. Jones, 144 Ill. 2d  at 262-63.
	In both Ramirez and Jones, this court examined the decision in
Morreale, but found that case was distinguishable. Ramirez, 162 Ill. 2d  at 245; Jones, 144 Ill. 2d  at 265-66. We noted the facts in
Morreale concerning the "hurried consultations," the pressure exerted
by the prosecutor, and the denial of the defendant's counsel of choice
were not present in Ramirez and Jones. Ramirez, 162 Ill. 2d  at 245;
Jones, 144 Ill. 2d  at 265. We also found the trial court's admonitions
were more comprehensive than those required when Morreale pleaded
guilty. Ramirez, 162 Ill. 2d  at 245; Jones, 144 Ill. 2d  at 265. In fact,
in Ramirez and Jones, the trial court's admonitions were specifically
characterized by this court as "lengthy and exhaustive." Ramirez, 162 Ill. 2d  at 245; Jones, 144 Ill. 2d  at 263. The defendants were
thoroughly admonished to ensure their guilty pleas were not obtained
by any threats, promises, or coercion. Ramirez, 162 Ill. 2d at 241-43;
Jones, 144 Ill. 2d  at 263. We concluded the trial court's admonitions
were sufficient to ensure the defendants entered voluntary pleas of
guilty despite the erroneous advice of counsel. Ramirez, 162 Ill. 2d  at
245; Jones, 144 Ill. 2d  at 265.
	The critical issue in Morreale, Ramirez, and Jones, as applicable
here, is whether the trial court's admonitions were sufficiently related
to counsel's erroneous advice to overcome the prejudice created by
that advice. Although the dissent engages in a detailed discussion of
Morreale, it does not focus on the trial court's admonitions. When the
dissent does mention the admonitions in Morreale, it states they were
limited to " 'the consequences of entering such a plea.' " Slip op. at
14 (Thomas, C.J., dissenting, joined by Fitzgerald and Garman, JJ.),
quoting Morreale, 412 Ill.  at 530. The dissent, however, misses the
point that those admonitions contradicted defense counsel's specific
erroneous advice that the defendant would be given probation. In
Morreale, even though the trial court "fully and properly" advised the
defendant of the potential consequences of his guilty plea, those
admonitions were insufficient to overcome defense counsel's
erroneous advice that the defendant would receive probation.
Morreale, 412 Ill.  at 533-34.
	Likewise, in Ramirez and Jones, the trial court's admonitions
specifically addressed the erroneous advice of counsel concerning the
potential consequences of pleading guilty. This court characterized the
admonitions in Ramirez and Jones as "lengthy and exhaustive" and
stated the defendants were thoroughly admonished on their claimed
errors. Ramirez, 162 Ill. 2d  at 241-43, 245; Jones, 144 Ill. 2d  at 263.
	In contrast, defendant was not given any admonition that
specifically addressed the erroneous advice of his attorney, much less
"lengthy and exhaustive" ones. Regarding the nature of the charge, the
record shows the trial court simply read the aggravated kidnapping
count from the information and asked if defendant understood "what
the charge is." This admonition simply confirmed that defendant knew
what was stated in the information. The admonition ensured defendant
was aware of the language of the charge, but it did not add to his
understanding of the knowledge element of the offense.
	The admonitions in this case were less likely to overcome the
prejudice of counsel's erroneous advice than those in Ramirez, Jones,
or even Morreale. In each of those cases, the defendant received
admonitions that addressed his particular claim of error. Here,
defendant did not receive such admonitions.
	Defendant's trial counsel alone carried the responsibility of
discussing with defendant the detailed facts of this case and advising
him of potential defenses. The alleged advice of counsel would have
necessarily influenced defendant's understanding of the knowledge
element as it would be applied to his conduct. According to defendant,
counsel repeatedly stated defendant's lack of awareness that the child
was inside the car did not constitute a defense to aggravated
kidnapping. Counsel also advised defendant he would be convicted
and sentenced to at least 25 years' imprisonment if he insisted on a
trial. This advice likely reinforced defendant's perception that he had
no defense to the charge. Defendant asserted he was convinced by
counsel that he did not have a defense. To state the obvious,
defendant was entitled to rely on the advice of his attorney concerning
the legal effect of available evidence and possible defenses to the
charge.
	We emphasize that we do not determine in this case whether the
trial court's admonitions were in compliance with Supreme Court
Rule 402 (177 Ill. 2d R. 402). That is not the relevant inquiry. The
question here is whether the admonitions were sufficient to overcome
the alleged erroneous advice of defendant's trial counsel. Despite the
efforts of the trial court, the record shows the admonitions did not
address the misrepresentations of defendant's trial counsel.
	Based on the specific facts of this case, we conclude the
admonishments of the trial court and the language of the charging
instrument are not sufficient to alleviate the prejudice of the alleged
repeated erroneous advice of counsel. Defendant's petition, liberally
construed, establishes a substantial showing that his guilty plea was
involuntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Given this
resolution, we need not address defendant's alternative arguments
concerning the voluntariness of his guilty plea due to trial court error.
	Defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his
postconviction claims that his guilty plea was involuntary. At the
evidentiary hearing, defendant will be given an opportunity to establish
his factual claims concerning the alleged erroneous advice of his trial
counsel. Following the evidentiary hearing, defendant might be
allowed to withdraw his guilty plea, thus rendering the Registration
Act and Notification Law inapplicable to him. Accordingly, we decline
to address the constitutionality of the Registration Act and
Notification Law because defendant's appeal is properly resolved on
his claim concerning the voluntariness of his guilty plea. See People
v. Lee, 214 Ill. 2d 476, 482 (2005) (this court will not consider a
constitutional question when a case can be resolved on other
grounds).
CONCLUSION
	For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the
appellate court and the circuit court's dismissal of defendant's
postconviction petition and remand this matter to the circuit court for
an evidentiary hearing on his postconviction claims.
Judgments reversed;
cause remanded.
	CHIEF JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting:
	Unlike the majority, I am convinced that defendant was in no way
prejudiced by counsel's allegedly erroneous advice. Accordingly, I
respectfully dissent.
	In People v. Morreale, 412 Ill. 528 (1952), the defendant was
indicted on June 17, 1950, and he entered a not-guilty plea several
weeks later. On May 17, 1951, the case was called for trial. The
defendant's counsel, George Crane, could not be present that day, as
he was trying another case. The defendant was instead represented by
"a youthful associate of Crane," who asked for a continuance until
Crane could be present. Instead of a continuance, the assistant State's
Attorney suggested that the case be passed so that the parties could
discuss a guilty plea. The trial court passed the case, and the two
attorneys set out to find Crane. Morreale, 412 Ill.  at 529-30.
	After finding Crane in another courtroom, the assistant State's
Attorney asked Crane if he was available to represent the defendant
in the entry of a guilty plea. Crane responded that it was impossible.
The assistant State's Attorney suggested that Crane's youthful
associate could represent the defendant, assuring Crane that the State
would not oppose probation and that the defendant "couldn't get
hurt." Crane acquiesced and instructed his youthful associate to follow
the assistant State's Attorney's lead. Accordingly, the youthful
associate instructed the defendant to change his plea to guilty,
assuring the defendant that he would get probation. When the
defendant balked, the youthful associate returned him to Crane, who
told him not to " 'worry about anything; plead guilty and you will get
probation.' " Morreale, 412 Ill.  at 530.
	The defendant returned to the courtroom with the youthful
associate and entered a guilty plea. Before accepting the plea, the trial
court "questioned [Morreale] as to whether such action was his wish
and duly admonished him as to the consequences of entering such a
plea." Morreale, 412 Ill.  at 530. Morreale answered in the affirmative,
and the trial court accepted the plea. Two weeks later, the trial court
sentenced the defendant to 5 to 10 years in prison. The defendant
moved to withdraw his guilty plea, and the trial court denied the
motion. Morreale, 412 Ill.  at 531.
	In reversing, this court explained that "[t]here are several
circumstances, peculiar to the record before us in this cause, which
lead us to believe that the ends of justice will be better served by
permitting plaintiff in error to change his plea and submit the matter
of his guilt to a jury." (Emphasis added.) Morreale, 412 Ill.  at 532.
These circumstances included (1) the longevity of the defendant's
original not-guilty plea; (2) the "hurried consultations" between
Crane, the assistant State's Attorney, and the youthful associate,
which "were accomplished during a recess of court by passing back
and forth between two courtrooms"; (3) the initiation of plea
discussions by the State, at a time when the defendant lacked
representation by the actual counsel of his choice; (4) the assistant
State's Attorney's representation that he would not oppose probation;
and (5) the timing of the trial court's admonitions, which "follow[ed]
so closely on the heels of the haste, confusion and influence discussed
above." Morreale, 412 Ill.  at 532-34. Ultimately, this court concluded,
[w]hen all the circumstances are considered, particularly the fact that
the prosecutor was the moving party in suggesting that no harm
would come to plaintiff in error if he pleaded guilty, it is difficult to
say that his act was a knowing and studied attempt to throw himself
on the mercy of the court in a hope for milder punishment." (Emphasis
added.) Morreale, 412 Ill.  at 533.
	Compare those facts with the present case. Here, defendant was
arrested on April 15, 1999, and formally charged by information on
April 21, 1999. A public defender was appointed, and a preliminary
hearing was held on April 29, 1999. Three weeks later, on May 19,
1999, defendant entered a fully negotiated guilty plea to the
aggravated kidnapping charge, for which he received the statutory
minimum sentence of six years in prison. Before accepting the plea,
the trial court admonished defendant as follows:
			"THE COURT: Mr. Hall, Count I charges you with the
offense of Aggravated Kidnaping on April 15th, 1999 in
Macon County. It alleges that you knowingly and secretly
confined [the victim], a child under the age of 13 years,
against her will. Do you understand what the charge is?
			THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
			THE COURT: Are you doing this of your own free will?
			THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
			THE COURT: This would be a Class X felony. That
means the possible penalty could be a fine of $1.00 up to
$25,000 and a period of incarceration from 6 years not to
exceed 30 years with a mandatory parole of 3 years. Do you
under stand what the possible penalty could be? 
			THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
			THE COURT: Also, if you plead guilty, you are waiving
or giving up your right to a trial by the court or by the jury.
You are giving up your right to cross-examine the witnesses
that might testify against you. You are giving up your right
to subpoena witnesses in to testify for you, and you are
giving up your right against self-incrimination. Do you
understand if you plead guilty, you are giving up all these
rights and we would not have a trial of any type?
			THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
			THE COURT: Do you have any questions?
			THE DEFENDANT: No." 
The facts demonstrate that this was an entirely routine guilty plea
case. Defendant entered a fully negotiated guilty plea shortly after
being charged, the terms of which were hammered out before the
relevant hearing commenced. Moreover, before accepting the plea, the
trial court expressly admonished defendant as to the elements of the
offense (including the fact that defendant knowingly confined the
victim), the range of possible penalties, and the consequences of
pleading guilty. This is a far cry from Morreale, where, on the
morning of trial, an assistant State's Attorney used defense counsel's
absence as an opportunity to coax a guilty plea out of an inadequately
represented defendant, and where the trial court's admonitions were
confined to "the consequences of entering such a plea." The two cases
could not be less alike.
	Which is not to say that the present case lacks an analog. On the
contrary, People v. Ramirez, 162 Ill. 2d 235 (1994), and People v.
Jones, 144 Ill. 2d 242 (1991), are squarely on point. In Jones, the
defendant pleaded guilty to three murders and was sentenced to death.
In his second petition for postconviction relief, the defendant alleged,
among other things, that trial counsel was ineffective by "induc[ing]
the defendant to plead guilty by advising him erroneously that the trial
judge owed counsel a favor and would not sentence the defendant to
death." Jones, 144 Ill. 2d  at 255. In rejecting this argument, Jones
explained that the defendant's allegations were belied by the record,
which clearly showed that, before accepting the defendant's plea, the
trial court "questioned the defendant in open court as to whether his
plea was obtained by coercion, threats or promises" and "repeatedly
warned the defendant that he could receive the death penalty for his
crimes." Jones, 144 Ill. 2d  at 263. As importantly, Jones rejected any
suggestion that "[the defendant's] expectation that the death sentence
would not be imposed was permissible, given the alleged assurances
of his counsel." Jones, 144 Ill. 2d  at 263. To accept such an argument,
the court explained, "would require us to characterize the court's
lengthy and exhaustive admonitions as merely a perfunctory or
ritualistic formality; a characterization we are unwilling to make."
Jones, 144 Ill. 2d  at 263.
	Similarly, in Ramirez, the defendant pleaded guilty to possession
of cannabis with the intent to deliver and was sentenced to five years
in prison. Defendant later filed a postconviction petition alleging
ineffective assistance of counsel. In support, the defendant alleged that
his attorney induced him to plead guilty "by erroneously advising him
that he had worked out a deal with the judge whereby defendant
would be sentenced to a two-year term of probation." In rejecting this
argument, the court stated:
		"Our review of the record shows that the allegations made in
the defendant's petition are refuted by the defendant's
responses to the trial court's questions at the guilty plea
hearing, at the sentencing hearing, and at the hearing on the
motion to withdraw the defendant's guilty plea." Ramirez,
162 Ill. 2d  at 240.
More specifically, Ramirez noted that, before accepting the
defendant's plea, the trial court asked the defendant "whether he
understood the nature of the charges against him," verified that the
defendant "understood the plea agreement," and asked the defendant
"whether anything else had been promised to him." Ramirez, 162 Ill. 2d  at 241. Ultimately, Ramirez concluded that these admonitions, as
well as defendant's on-the-record responses, "contradict the assertions
raised in his post-conviction petition that he pled guilty in reliance
upon his counsel's promise that he would receive probation, and that
such misrepresentations resulted in his denial of effective assistance of
counsel." Ramirez, 162 Ill. 2d  at 243.
	Notably, in both Jones and Ramirez, the court went out of its
way to explain that Morreale was wholly inapplicable. Neither Jones
nor Ramirez were represented by their counsel's youthful associate,
and neither was pressured or induced by the assistant State's Attorney
to change his plea while confused and in a state of misapprehension.
Ramirez, 162 Ill. 2d  at 245; Jones, 144 Ill. 2d  at 265. As importantly,
the trial court's admonitions in both cases were "more comprehensive
than those required in 1952 when Morreale pleaded guilty, and
adequately ensured that the defendant was entering a voluntary plea
of guilty." Ramirez, 162 Ill. 2d  at 245; Jones, 144 Ill. 2d  at 265. In
other words, both Jones and Ramirez treated Morreale as a singular
case, controlled by its particular and highly unusual facts.
	This leads to the obvious question: Is the present case more like
Morreale, or more like Jones and Ramirez? There is no question that
this case is more like Jones and Ramirez. In all three of these cases,
the defendants entered their pleas free of any undue influence from the
prosecution. More importantly, in all three cases, the defendants'
claims of ineffective assistance were directly contradicted by the
record. In Jones and Ramirez, the defendants claimed that they were
given off-the-record assurances concerning their sentences. On the
record, however, both defendants denied that any such assurances
were given. In this case, defendant claims that he was told that lack of
knowledge is not a defense to aggravated kidnapping. On the record,
however, defendant was read the charge against him, including the
allegation that he knowingly confined the victim, and he specifically
stated that he understood it. This case is indistinguishable from Jones
and Ramirez, and, as in those case, we should defer to the record.
	The majority is certain that the admonishments in this case were
powerless to undo "[t]he alleged advice of counsel," which "would
have necessarily influenced defendant's understanding of the
knowledge element as it would be applied to his conduct." Slip op. at
12. The majority then adds that, "[t]o state the obvious, defendant was
entitled to rely on the advice of his attorney concerning the legal effect
of available evidence and possible defenses to the charge." Slip op. at
12. While it may be true as a general matter that a defendant is entitled
to rely on the advice of his counsel, it is not necessarily true in all
cases. Indeed, this is the whole point of Jones and Ramirez. Jones and
Ramirez clearly teach that a defendant is not entitled to rely on the
advice of his attorney to contradict his own unequivocal responses to
on-the-record admonishments. To allow otherwise would be to reduce
admonishments to "merely a perfunctory or ritualistic formality."
Jones, 144 Ill. 2d  at 263.
	In sum, the record clearly demonstrates that, prior to accepting
defendant's guilty plea, the trial court asked defendant whether he
understood the nature of the offense, including the allegation that he
acted knowingly. Defendant responded in the affirmative. Under both
Jones and Ramirez, this court should respect that answer and reject
defendant's claim of ineffective assistance.
	JUSTICES FITZGERALD and GARMAN join in this dissent.