2024 IL App (1st) 221680-U

No. 1-22-1680 

Order filed April 10, 2024 

Third Division

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the 

limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

______________________________________________________________________________ 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIRST DISTRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

JAMES ALLEN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Appeal from the

Circuit Court of

Cook County. 

No. 16 CR 4334

Honorable 

Charles P. Burns, 

Judge, presiding. 

JUSTICE R. VAN TINE delivered the judgment of the court.

Justices Lampkin and D.B. Walker concurred in the judgment. 

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: Where the trial court erred in admonishing defendant regarding his rights at his 

probation revocation hearing, the court’s judgment is vacated and the cause 

remanded for new admonishments and further revocation proceedings as necessary.

¶ 2 Pursuant to a 2016 negotiated guilty plea, defendant James Allen was convicted of burglary 

and sentenced to two years’ probation. In 2022, the trial court found defendant in violation of 

probation and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. On appeal, defendant contends that the 
No. 1-22-1680 

- 2 - 

court erred in admonishing him pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 402A (eff. Nov. 1, 2003) during 

the probation revocation hearing. For the reasons stated below, we vacate and remand.

¶ 3 Defendant was charged with burglary committed on or about October 9, 2015. In March 

2016, he pled guilty to burglary in exchange for two years’ probation with five days of community 

service and $609 in fines and fees. 

¶ 4 During the plea hearing, the court read aloud defendant’s burglary charge and admonished 

him that he was waiving the right to a bench or jury trial where the State would have to prove him 

guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he would hear the evidence against him, and could crossexamine and call witnesses. The court informed him that he could be sentenced to a prison term 

of three to seven years, with two years of mandatory supervised release (MSR), and a fine of 

$25,000. See 720 ILCS 5/19-1(b) (West 2016); 730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-35(a), 5-4.5-50(b) (West 2016).

¶ 5 In June 2016, the State filed a petition to revoke defendant’s probation for burglary due to

his alleged commission of domestic battery. In September 2016, defendant stipulated that he

violated probation; in exchange, the court imposed 180 days in jail and recommitment to probation. 

The court informed defendant of the alleged probation violation and admonished him there would 

be no hearing on the violation and he could receive three to seven years’ imprisonment and a 

$25,000 fine. He affirmed that nobody forced him to stipulate and he did so of his own free will.

¶ 6 In March 2017, the State filed a revocation petition due to defendant’s alleged public 

urination and nonpayment of fines and fees. Defendant stipulated to the violation in exchange for 

five additional days of community service. The court informed him of the alleged violation and 

admonished him there would be no hearing on the violation and he could receive three to seven 
No. 1-22-1680 

- 3 - 

years in prison and a $25,000 fine. He agreed that nobody forced him to stipulate and he did so of 

his own free will.

¶ 7 In May 2017, the State filed a revocation petition due to defendant allegedly not completing 

community service and failing to appear for a drug test. Defendant pled guilty and was 

recommitted to probation. The court informed him of the alleged violation and admonished him 

that he could receive three to seven years in prison with two years’ MSR and a $25,000 fine. The 

court also admonished him that he waived the right to a hearing where the State would have to 

prove him guilty by a preponderance of the evidence, and where he would hear the evidence 

against him and could cross-examine witnesses and present evidence. Defendant affirmed that 

nobody forced him to plead guilty and he did so of his own free will.

¶ 8 In July 2017, the State filed a revocation petition alleging that defendant tested positive for 

marijuana. He stipulated to the violation in exchange for 60 days in jail and an extension of 

probation to July 2018. The court informed him of the alleged violation and admonished him there 

would be no hearing on the violation and he could receive three to seven years in prison and a 

$25,000 fine. He agreed that nobody forced him to stipulate and he did so of his own free will. 

¶ 9 In October 2017, the State filed a revocation petition alleging that defendant committed 

home invasion and aggravated criminal sexual assault (ACSA) on or about October 29, 2017. 

¶ 10 While that petition was pending, the State brought charges of home invasion, ACSA, and 

residential burglary against defendant in case numbers 17 CR 16663, 17 CR 16664, and 17 CR

16665. Those cases were consolidated and proceeded to a jury trial in which defendant represented 

himself and pled not guilty by reason of insanity. The jury, having been instructed on insanity and 
No. 1-22-1680 

- 4 - 

on findings of guilty but mentally ill, found defendant guilty of home invasion, two counts of 

ACSA, and two counts of residential burglary. 

¶ 11 Defendant was thereafter represented by counsel, and a behavioral clinical examination 

found him fit for sentencing. The examination found he was aware of the charges, familiar with 

court personnel and the purpose of legal proceedings, and capable of rationally assisting counsel. 

He was sentenced on November 1, 2022, to an aggregate term of 63 years’ imprisonment: 21 years

each for home invasion and two counts of ACSA, to be served consecutively to each other and 

concurrently to 12-year sentences for residential burglary.1 It was undisputed in the sentencing 

hearing that defendant’s criminal history consisted of the burglary conviction now at issue and 

misdemeanor convictions in 2016 for criminal damage to property and domestic battery.

¶ 12 Immediately following that sentencing hearing, the court held a probation revocation 

hearing. Noting that defendant was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offenses 

supporting the revocation of probation “and his probation [violation] would have to be proven by 

a preponderance,” counsel agreed to a plea conference (see Ill. S. Ct. R. 402(d) (eff. July 1, 2012)) 

after consulting defendant. The court recommended five years’ imprisonment concurrent to the 

sentences in the other cases, and counsel said defendant would stipulate to the probation violation. 

¶ 13 The court told defendant that he received probation in March 2016, which he violated when 

he was “convicted of these offenses” for which he had just been sentenced. The court added there 

would be no hearing if defendant stipulated to violating probation, and he faced three to seven 

years’ imprisonment. Defendant agreed that nobody forced him to stipulate and he did so of his 

own free will. The court accepted the stipulation and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment, 

1

That case is being appealed separately. People v. Allen, No. 1-22-1681. 
No. 1-22-1680 

- 5 - 

to be served concurrently to his aggregate 63-year sentence. The court admonished defendant of 

his appeal rights. Defense counsel’s oral motion to reconsider sentence, which did not address the 

court’s admonishments, was denied. 

¶ 14 On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court failed to admonish him of his rights 

pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 402A during the 2022 probation revocation hearing. The State 

acknowledges that defendant was not properly admonished under Rule 402A during the 2022 

hearing, but argues that defendant understood his rights from his previous revocation hearings and 

that the court substantially complied with Rule 402A during the earlier admonishments.

¶ 15 Supreme Court Rule 402A provides that in proceedings to revoke probation where the 

defendant admits to violating probation or offers to stipulate that the evidence is sufficient to 

revoke probation, “there must be substantial compliance with” the requirement that the: 

“court shall not accept an admission to a violation, or a stipulation that the evidence is 

sufficient to revoke, without first addressing the defendant personally in open court, and 

informing the defendant of and determining that the defendant understands the following:

(1) the specific allegations in the petition to revoke probation ***; 

(2) that the defendant has the right to a hearing with defense counsel present, and 

the right to appointed counsel if the defendant is indigent and the underlying offense is 

punishable by imprisonment;

(3) that at the hearing, the defendant has the right to confront and cross-examine 

adverse witnesses and to present witnesses and evidence in his or her behalf;

(4) that at the hearing, the State must prove the alleged violation by a preponderance 

of the evidence;
No. 1-22-1680 

- 6 - 

(5) that by admitting to a violation, or by stipulating that the evidence is sufficient 

to revoke, there will not be a hearing on the petition to revoke probation, *** so that by 

admitting to a violation, or by stipulating that the evidence is sufficient to revoke, the 

defendant waives the right to a hearing and the right to confront and cross-examine adverse 

witnesses, and the right to present witnesses and evidence in his or her behalf; and 

(6) the sentencing range for the underlying offense for which the defendant is on 

probation.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 402A(a) (eff. Nov. 1, 2003).

¶ 16 Rule 402A also requires the court to determine “that the defendant’s admission is voluntary 

and not made on the basis of any coercion or promise,” and “that there is a factual basis for the 

defendant’s admission or stipulation.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 402A(b), (c) (eff. Nov. 1, 2003).

¶ 17 Substantial compliance with Rule 402A exists when the record taken as a whole, including 

earlier proceedings, affirmatively shows that the defendant understood each of the required 

admonitions. People v. Bailey, 2021 IL App (1st) 190439, ¶ 27; People v. Dennis, 354 Ill. App. 3d 

491, 495-96 (2004). Substantial compliance is determined on the facts of each case, with the focus

being on the time between the admonishment and the admission or stipulation. In re Westley A.F., 

399 Ill. App. 3d 791, 796 (2010); Dennis, 354 Ill. App. 3d at 496. A claim that the circuit court 

failed to issue admonishments in substantial compliance with Rule 402A(a) is not subject to 

forfeiture. See People v. Curry, 2019 IL App (3d) 160783, ¶ 22. Whether there was substantial 

compliance is a legal question reviewed de novo. Bailey, 2021 IL App (1st) 190439, ¶ 27. 

¶ 18 After reviewing the record as a whole, we find that the court failed to substantially comply 

with Rule 402A where the admonishments in defendant’s 2022 probation revocation hearing did 

not fully conform to the rule. The court told defendant of the allegations against him, that there 
No. 1-22-1680 

- 7 - 

would be no hearing if he stipulated to his violation, and that he faced three to seven years’ 

imprisonment. Counsel stated in defendant’s presence that violation of probation would have to

be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Ill. S. Ct. R. 402A(a)(1), (4), (6) (eff. Nov. 1, 2003). 

However, the court made no mention of defendant’s rights to a hearing with counsel present, to 

have counsel appointed if indigent, to cross-examine witnesses, or to present witnesses or other 

evidence, nor did it state that his stipulation would waive the right to a hearing with the right to 

cross-examine and present witnesses. Ill. S. Ct. R. 402A(a)(2), (3) (5) (eff. Nov. 1, 2003).

¶ 19 The State nevertheless asserts that substantial compliance existed because “the record 

reflects that defendant was properly admonished of these same rights no fewer than four times 

prior to November 1, 2022.” However, as defendant correctly notes, the court’s earlier probation 

revocation admonishments had some of the same flaws as the 2022 admonishments. Specifically, 

none of the previous admonishments mentioned the right to counsel for the hearing and to have 

counsel appointed if indigent. Only in one of the four prior hearings, in May 2017, did the court 

admonish defendant that he had a right to a hearing and that he would be waiving his right to see 

and hear the evidence against him, cross-examine witness, present witnesses, and make the State 

prove his violation by a preponderance of the evidence. That said, even at that hearing, the court 

did not admonish him of one of his rights under Rule 402A: the right to counsel at the revocation 

hearing. Given the shortcomings of the earlier admonishments and the approximately five years 

between those admonishments and the November 2022 hearing, we cannot conclude that the 

record affirmatively shows that defendant understood each of the Rule 402A admonishments when 

he stipulated to his violation in November 2022. Stated differently, the court’s admonishments did 

not substantially comply with Rule 402A.
No. 1-22-1680 

- 8 - 

¶ 20 The State cites People v. Pike, 2016 IL App (1st) 122626, ¶ 112, for the proposition that a 

failure to fully admonish a defendant nonetheless may constitute substantial compliance where the 

defendant was not prejudiced if (1) the absence of a detail from the admonishments did not impede 

the defendant from giving a knowing and intelligent waiver, or (2) the defendant possessed a 

degree of knowledge or sophistication excusing the lack of admonition. In particular, the State 

emphasizes the second prong of the proposition. Defendant notes that Pike concerns a waiver of 

the right to counsel and Supreme Court Rule 401 (eff. July 1, 1984) governing such waivers, 

arguing Pike’s inapplicability to this case under Rule 402A.

¶ 21 We need not address the applicability of Pike to Rule 402A cases because the record does 

not show that defendant possessed a degree of knowledge or sophistication excusing the 

incomplete admonitions. The Pike defendant had been extensively admonished of the charges 

against him and thus was aware of the nature of those charges when he waived his right to counsel. 

Pike, 2016 IL App (1st) 122626, ¶¶ 117-121. By contrast, defendant was never admonished under 

Rule 402A of his right to counsel at the revocation hearing, and only once five years earlier was 

admonished of some of his Rule 402A rights. 

¶ 22 Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court is vacated and this cause is remanded for 

new Rule 402A admonishments and further probation revocation proceedings as necessary. See 

Curry, 2019 IL App (3d) 160783, ¶ 23.

¶ 23 Vacated and remanded.