No. 2-07- 0475 File d: 8-9-10

_____________________________________________________ _____ ______________________ _ IN THE APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS SECOND DI STRICT

_____________________________________________________________ _____ ______________

_ THE PEOPL

E OF TH E STATE ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court OF ILLINOIS, ) o f Ka ne Co un t y. ) Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, ) ) v. ) No. 05-- CF--2819 ) DERRICK

BURNS, ) Ho no r ab le ) Timot hy Q. S heldo n, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) Judge, Presi din g.

________________________________________ _____ ___________________________________ _ JU STI CESC HO STO K

de l i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: In May 2006, pursuant to an agreem ent wi th the Stat e, the defen

dant, Derrick Burns, plea

ded gui l ty t o ar med r o bbe ry (7 20 I LC S 5 /1 8-
- 2( a) ( 2) ( We st 20 04 ) ) an d h o me i nvasi on (720 I LCS 5/12-- 11(a)( 3) (West 200 4)). In excha nge fo r his plea , t he de fendant was sent ence d t o c onc ur re nt 21-year pr iso n t er ms and other

charges were n

ol-prossed. The def

endan t did not move to withdraw his plea a nd

did no t ap pe al fr o m his convi ctions. However, the f

oll owing J uly , the defen

dant fi le d a pro se petition ostensi

bl y s eeki ng rel ie f pursuan

t t o bot h section 2--1401 of the Code o f Civil Procedu re (735 ILCS 5 /2--14 01 (West 200 6)) and t he Post -Conviction Hearin g Act (Act) (725 ILCS 5/122 --1 et seq. (West 2006) ). In his pet itio n, t he de fen da nt cla imed t ha t he wa s no t pr o pe r ly adm onis hed that h i s prison s en

tenc es woul d be

f oll owed b y a thre e-y

ear term of m andatory supervised

release (MSR) (see 730 I LCS 5/5--8--1(d) (1) (West 2004)). The defen dant alle ged

th at, while in priso n, he l earn

ed that the M SR term

would be added to his s entences . He further al le gedNo. 2-- 07--0475

-2-

th at, had he known about t he MSR term, he "w ould ha ve r eneg ot iate d t he t er ms of his plea , a nd
wo uld not hav

e acce pted the 21 y

ear sen tence wi th MSR ." The def

endan t requested t hat the trial courtre du ce his p ris o n t er ms in ac co rd anc e w it h t he h o lding o f Peo ple v. Whit field , 217 Ill . 2d 177 (2 005 ). The t rial co ur t t re at ed t he pe t itio n as o ne bro ught unde r t he Act and sum ma ril y di sm is sed it , fi ndi ng i t fri volous an d patently without meri

t. See 725 ILCS 5/122 --2.1(a )(2) (W est 200 6). The defen dant appealed. The Office o f the Sta

te A pp el l ate De f en der w as appoi n ted to re pr ese nt t he de fendant , bu t t he assist ant de f

en der a ss i gn ed to represent the def

endan t moved to withdraw. W e den i ed the moti on and ordered t he de fendant 's attorn ey to f i l e a br i ef on th e m eri ts. W e then af f i rm ed the j udg men t of t he trial court in an un publ is hed orderissued on August 13, 200 9. Peo ple v. Bur ns , No. 2- -07--0475 (200 9) ( un pu blish ed o r de rpu r su an t t o Su pr eme Co ur t Ru le 2 3)
. On Ma r ch 24 , 20 10 , t he I lli noi s Su pr eme Court is sue d a su per visor y or der dire ct ing us t o va cat e o ur Augu st 13, 200 9, or der and
r ec o nsid er

o ur de cisio n in light o f Pe o ple v. Mo rr is , 23 6 Il l . 2d 345 (20 10) . W e p erm

i tted bot h partiesto f

i l e supp l em

en tal br i ef s on the appl i ca ti on o f Mo rr is
. W e vac ateour prev i ousdi sp osi

ti on an d, u pon re con si dera ti on , re v er se th e j udgm

en t of th e tr i al cou rt. At t he hea ring a t which t he de fen da nt en t er ed his plea , th e p ros ecutor des cri be d the terms of t he ple a agreem

ent but negl

ectedto m

en ti on th at, af ter th e def en da nt c om plete d h i s c onc urren t prison terms, he wo uld be re quir ed t o s er ve a t hre e- year t er m of MS R. Pr ior t o a cce pt ingt he de fendant 's ple a, however, the trial

court adm

onis hed t he de fen da nt as fo llo ws pu r su an t t o Su pr eme Co ur t Ru le 402 (1 77 Il

l . 2d R. 4 02): "Mr. Bu rns, o n bo t h c as es , t he ar med r o bbe ry, a Cla ss X fe lo ny, an d t he ho me in vasi on is al so a Class X f

el ony, y ou should b e advised thata c onv i cti on on these off

ensesNo. 2-- 07--0475

-3-

co uld resul

t in y ou bei ng sen tenced to the Ill i noi s D ep artm

en t of Corr ec ti ons f or a p eri od of ti me f rom 6 to 30 yea r s; t he ex t en de d t er m is 30 to 60 ye ars. There's a potentia l f in e of up to $25,000, w

i th a p eriod of th

ree y ears mandatory

supe rvised releas e." Nei ther t he conv i cti on order n

or the s en tenc i ng orders on

the two con

vi cti ons m en tion ed M SR. The defend ant as se r t s t ha t he wa s u na wa r e t ha t a t er m o f MS R w o uld be ad de d t o his sentences, t hat t he trial court 's adm

onition was not consi stent with the due process pri nci ple s ann ounced in Whit field and clarified in Mo rr is , a nd t hat t he t rial co ur t t her efo re er re d in dismissing his pet itio n. Wh en a defe ndan t who has been

sentence d

to im prisonm ent files a pet itio n unde r t he Act , t he trial co ur t mus t firs t ind ep en de nt ly examine the p eti

tion , taki ng i ts f actual al l egati ons as true. Pe o ple
v. Hodges , 234 Il

l . 2d 1, 10 (2009 ). If

the trial court fi nds that t he pe t it io n is " fr ivo lo us o ris p at en t ly without merit" (725 I LCS 5/122--2.1(a)( 2) ( We st 20 06 ) ) , t he t r ial c o ur t mus t su mmar ily dis miss it ( Hodges , 234 Ill. 2d at 10) . T he "fr ivo lous or pa ten tl y wi th out m eri t" stan da rd mea n s th at a pos tcon vi cti on pe t it io n ma y be s umma r ily dis miss ed o nly if it "h as no arguabl

e basi s ei ther in la wor in fact." Hodges , 234 Il

l . 2d at 16
. Al

though the tri al courtin itially takes the all

egations as

true at t his st ag e, in

evalua t ing t he pe t itio n "t he t rial co ur t may cons ider t he pe ti ti on' s a l l eg ati ons i n l i gh t of the trial re co rd and may dismiss t he pe t itio n if the recor d cont radicts tho se all egations." Peo ple v. Rob i ns on , 375 Ill . A

pp. 3d 3 20, 329(20 07) ; s eealso Hodges , 234 Ill . 2d at 16 (a legal ar gument that is c o mple t ely

contr adicted by

the reco rd is an ex

ampl e of an i ndi sputably

meri tless ar gument ). The Sta te argues t hat t he pe t itio n in this ca se w as p ro per ly dism issed be cau se t he r eco rd re fut es t he defend ant 's cl ai

m that he was not properly a

dmoni shed. W e review de no vo the s

um mary dis mi ssal of a p ostc onv

i cti on p eti ti on . Hodges , 234 Ill . 2d at 9.No. 2-- 07--0475

-4-

For a guil ty plea to pass mus t er un de rt he du e p r o ce ss cla us e, "t he r ec o r d mu st affir mat ive ly sh owthat t he pl

ea was ent er ed int elligently and with f ull knowledge of its consequences." Whit field , 217 Ill . 2d at 184, citing Bo ykin v. Alab ama , 395 U .S. 238, 2 3 L. Ed . 2d 274 , 89 S. C t. 1709 (19 69). Ru le 402(a)( 2) pro vides that the tr ial cour t must adm

onis h a cri mi nal defen dant of "the m

in im um and
ma xi mum sent ence pr esc ribed by law" for t he o ffense t o w hich the defend ant is ple adi ng gui lty (177 I ll. 2d R. 402(a)(2)), and "is desi gned to en su reth at a guil ty plea m eets t hi s requiremen

t" ( Peo ple v. Da nie ls , 388 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 95 2, 955 ( 2009) ). In Whit field , o ur su pr eme co ur t obs er ved t hat , u nder t he due process cla

use and R ule 402(a)(2), it is n

ecessary to adm onis h a def endan t wh o is e nterin

g a gui l ty pl ea that he or she w

i l l be req ui red to serve a

term of MSR after compl

eting h is or herprison t er m. Whit field , 217 Ill . 2d at 188, citing Pe o ple v. Wills , 61 I ll. 2d 105 , 109 (1 975); se e al so Da nie ls , 388 Ill . App. 3d at 955. Mo rr is , the decision we

were di re cte d to c on si

der, c on tai n s two as pe cts t ha t ar e p o t en t ially
re levant her e: firs t , a hold ingre gar ding t he a pp licab ility o f Whit field to rec en tl y f i l ed pos tcon vi cti on petitions; and second, a cl arif ic ation of the Whit field r

ule
. As t o t he firs t , t he su pr eme court hel d that t he ru le anno unce d in Whit field doe s n ot retroacti

v el y appl y to conv i cti ons th at were f i na l ized b ef ore Whit field was d ec i ded, i.e. , prior to Decem ber 20, 20 05. Mo rr is , 2 36 I ll. 2d a t 366 . Ma ny of t he
casest hat we re re mand ed t o t his c o ur t in t he w ak e o f Mo rr is ranafo ul o f this limi t at ion, as t he
co nvictio ns in

those cases were f

in al bef ore Whit field was dec ided. Her e, how ever , t he de fendant 's
co nvictio ns becam

e fi nal in 2006, well

after the Whit field deci si on was i ssued. Thu s, t he defend ant
was ent itled t o ha ve t he r ule anno unce d in Whit field applied to hi s convictions. The se co nd a sp ec t o f Mo rr is t ha t is r ele va nt he r e is i ts c l ari f i ca ti on of the Whit field ru le. T he suf fi ci ency of a n admo nishment a bou t MSR is a fact -sp ecific inquiry t hat foc use s o n whether anNo. 2-- 07--0475

-5-

ordi na ry pers on i n th e def en da nt' s p l ac e w oul

d have re as ona

bl y un ders toodt ha t MS R w o uld be added to his or h er se

nten ce. Mo rr is , 2 36 I ll. 2d a t 366 . Alt hou gh t he ad monishment n ee d n ot b e p er f ect, t he t r ial c o ur t mus t su bst an t ially c o mply wi th Ru l e 402
. Whit field , 2 17 I ll. 2d a t 195 . I n Mo rr is , t he supr eme court clari fi

ed that the substanti al

compl ia nce standa

rd is s atisf

ie d when the Rul e 402 admo nishment l i

nks MSR to the gui

l ty p l ea. Sp eci

f i cal l y , " Whit field re quir es t hat defend ant s be advi sed that a t erm of MSR will be adde d to the actual se

ntence ag re ed up on i n ex ch an ge f or a gui l ty ple a to the of f en se." (Em

phasi s ad ded.) Mo rr is , 23 6 I ll. 2d at 36 7. T he su pr eme cou rt n oted th at,

" [ i] de ally, a t rial co ur t 's ad monishment wo uld exp licitly l ink MSR t o t he se nt ence t o w hich the defend ant agreed i

n exchan ge for his guilty

ple a, wo uld be giv en at t he t ime the trial court reviewed t he pr ovisio ns o f the plea a gr eement , a nd wo uld be r eite ra t ed bo t h at sent encing a nd in the written judgm ent." Mo rr is , 236 Ill . 2d at 367. In ou r view , t he ad monishment given her e did no t co mply with th e requirem ents of due pro cess und

er Whit field and Mo rr is , b ec au se i t did n ot l i nk the term of MSR to t he actual

sentence s t ha t t he de fen da nt wo uld recei ve un der hi s pl ea agreem

ent and di d not convey

uncondi tional ly that t he MSR wo uld be a dde d t o t he agreed-upon sentences . See Mo rr is , 236 Ill . 2d at 367. T he trial courtfi rst admoni shed the def

endan t regarding the ran

ge of i mprisonm ent that "could" ha

ve b een im posed(p re sumably, abs ent t he plea agree men t): " a c onv

i cti on on these o ff

enses co uld res

ul t i n y ou being sentence d

t o t he I lli nois D epa rt ment o f Cor re ct ions fo r a per iod of t ime from 6 t o 3 0 year s; t he extended term i s 30 to 60 y

ears ." (E mphasis ad ded .) The tri al cou rt f ol l owe d th

i s wi th a de scri ption of the "p oten ti al f i ne " of up t o $ 25, 000 . T hus far , t her efo re , t he ad monishment re late d so lely to t he penal tiest hat t he defend ant might r ece ive, a nd did not mentio n at all the s ent ence s t hat t he defend ant
wo uld in f

act re ce i v e u n der the p l ea

ag re em en t. Th e tr i al cou rt' s a ddi ti on of l an gu ag e rel ati n g toNo. 2-- 07--0475

-6-

MSR ("with a period of threeyears['] m andato ry supervi sed release") at th i s p oi nt th ere f ore d i d n ot i nf orm t he de fendant t hat MSR wo uld be added to t he 21-y ear sentence s to which

the defe ndan t had agreed. Thu s, a n or dinar y per so n in the d efenda nt 's plac e might have r eas ona bly beli eved t hat he
wou l d n ot h av e to s er v e a n y MS R a s a

re su l t of h i s p l ea ag re em en t. Our co ur t ha s p r ev io us ly fo un d t his ty peof adm oni tion, i n wh i ch the i nf ormation ab out MSR is in cl uded wi th a descr ipti on

of th e p en al ti estha t the de f en da nt c oul d have f ac ed i f he ha d n ot ple aded guilt y, t o be insufficient. In Da nie ls , 38 8 I ll. A pp . 3d at 9 54 , the def

en da n t pl eade d g ui l ty to f orgery and bu rglary i n excha nge f or cons ecuti

ve pri son s en

tenc es of two ye arsf

or the form

er offense and t hre e year s for t he lat t er . B efo re acc ept ing t he plea , t he trial co ur t admo nished t he de f en da n t: " 'Mi

ni mum sentence s y

ou can recei

ve are probation or condi tional dis charge. Maxi mum sentence o n the f orge ry woul d b e 1 0 y

ea rs i n th e Il l i noi s D ep artm

en t of Corr ections. Normal

ly would be fi ve, but the Stat e tells m

e that based on y

our background, yo uare eligi

ble for extended term, with one y ear parole or man

dato ry s up ervi sed release. You could be f

in ed up to $25, 000. Burgl ary is a Class 2 f

el ony. Mi ni mum sentence is probation or conditi onal

dis charge. Maxi mum se n te nc e w ou ld b e 14 y

ears i n the Il li nois Departmen

t o f Corrections wi

th two years man dato ry supervi sed releaseor p arole. Yo u could be fi ned up to $25,000 .' " Da nie ls , 388 Ill . App. 3d at 954. We held t hat t his admo nitio n was insufficientbeca use it linked MSR t o t he ma xi mum sentence s rather than to the sentence s speci

fi ed i n the pl ea agr ee me nt. Da nie ls , 3 88 I ll. App. 3d a t 959 . T he ad m oni ti on giv en here re sembles t he insufficient a dmo nitio n in Da nie ls , which l i n ke d M SR "on l y toNo. 2-- 07--0475

-7-

t he ma xi mum sentences author ized by

law." (Em

phasi s i n ori gi na l .) Da nie ls , 388 Ill . App. 3d at 959. As in Da nie ls , t he ad

moni ti on he r e c o uld ha ve fo st er ed a r ea so na ble be lief t ha t MS R a t t ac he d o nly to a particul

ar contingen

cy that mi ght or might not happen. Theref ore, due p roc es s req

ui re men ts
were not m et. See Mo r r is , 23 6 Ill . 2d at 366 ("An adm onition that uses the term 'M SR' wi thout putti ng i t i n s ome re l evan

t con tex t ca nn ot serv e to adv

i se the de f en da nt of the conse que nc esof his gui l ty ple a and can not aid the def

endan t in m aki ng an in form ed decision abo ut his case") ; Whit field , 217 I ll. 2d at 18 8 ( a de fendant must be ad monished t hat MSR is included in the s ent ence t o be i m posed ). The State argues that o urap pr o ac h w ill "l ead[] to a ki

nd of l anguage parsi

ng com ple tely at odds wit h R

ule 402 's substantial

compli ance standard." We disagree. Our de cisi on here, li ke tho se in Mo rr is and Whit field , ask s no more of a tria l c ourt than that it convey , with reasona ble cl arity, that t he de f en da n t se n ten ce d to pri son

as pa rt of a p l ea ag re em en t willha ve to serv e a term of MSR af ter
co mplet ingt he pr iso n t er m. A substantial compli ance standard t hat permitted any l ess w o uld unde rmine the defe

ndan t's righ t t o due pro ces s of

l aw an d w oul d r ed uc e R ul e 4 02 to an

em pty fo rmali t y. We there f ore f i nd tha t the tri al cou rt' s adm oni sh men t did n ot co mply with du e pr oc ess a nd
reverse t he dismissal o f the defend ant 's po st co nvictio n pet itio n. We n ext consider the remedi

es that are avai la ble to t he def

endan t o n rem and. "In Whi tf i eld , t he co ur t ex pla ine d t ha t , wh er e t he de fen da nt is no t pr o pe r ly adm onis hed, 't he r e a r e t wo se pa r at e, t ho ug h c lo sel y rel ated, constitutional c

hal le nges that m

ay be made: (1) tha

t the plea of gui l ty wa s n ot ma de volu nt ar ily

and w ith full kno wledg e o f the consequences, an

d ( 2) th at def

en da n t di d n ot re ce i v e th e b en ef i t of th e b argai

n h e m ade wi thNo. 2-- 07--0475

-8-

t he State when

he pled gu i l ty.' [Ci tation .] The second ty

pe of cha ll engepr oc eed s up on t he theory tha t, ab sent th

e re qui si te adm oni sh men t, ad di ti on of the MS R term

to the agree d-u pon sentence 'vi olates due pr oce ss bec aus e t he se nt ence impose d is mor e o ner ou s t han t he o ne defend ant ag r ee d t o at t he t ime o f t he ple a h ea r ing
. ' [ Cit at io n. ] T he de fen da nt in Whit field
so ug ht t o en fo r ce , as ne ar ly as po ss ible, his b ar ga in wit h t he St at e. He ha d ag re ed t o s er ve a 25-year prison term f

or fi rst-degree murder, but not the 3-year t er m of MS R impos ed by operati on of la w[citation]. The court held that MSR could not be stricke n f rom the sen

tence; rathe r, t he ap pr op riat e r emedy wa s t o r edu ce t he de fendant 's pr ison t er m by thre e year s-- t he len gth o f the MSR term." Da nie ls , 388 Ill . App. 3d at 955-56. The defen dant asks us t o g ra nt him the r emedy pr ovid ed in Whit field and sub tract threeyea

rs f rom his 21- year p riso n t er ms for ar med r obbe ry and home invas ion. Here, how ever , a s in Da nie ls , the remedy of sen tence redu ction g iven in Whit field i s n ot avai la ble. The defend ant 's ar med r obbe ry co nvictio n ispredica ted on s ub se cti on ( a)( 2) of

se cti on 18--2 of the Cri

mi nal Code of 1961 (Code) (720 ILCS 5/ 18- -2 (a )( 2) (Wes t 200 4) ). Sec t ion 1 8- -2 (b) of the Code p rovi de s th

at " [a] vi ol ati on of subsection (a)(2) is a

Class X f elony f or whi ch 15 y ears sha ll be added to the ter m of i mpri sonment i

mposed by

the cou rt. " 720 ILCS 5/1 8--2( b) (West 2004)
. The de fen da nt 's h o me inv as io n c o nvic t io n is predica ted on subsecti on (a)(3) o f s ection 12--11 of the Code (720 ILCS 5 /12--1 1(a)( 3) (West 20 04)). Section 12-- 11(c) o f the Code cont ains a pro vi si on sim il ar to that in section 18--2( b), defi ni ng a vi olation of subsection (a)(3) as a Class X fel ony a nd requi rin g 15 years

to be ad ded to the

term of i m pri sonm en t im posed by the c ourt. 720 ILCS 5/ 12- -1 1( a) (3 ) ( West 200 4) . T hus, bot h of t he de fendant 's co nvictio ns are of Class X fel onies, and b oth req ui re th e addi ti on of 15 y ea rs to the sente nc e of i m pri sonm en t. The m i ni m um pri son ter mNo. 2-- 07--0475

-9-

f ora Class X f

el ony i s 6 y ears, and wh

en 15 ye ars are added to t hat term , the m

i ni m um pri son ter

m f oreac h of t he de fendant 's co nvictio ns is 21 years . R edu cing t he defen dant's se ntences by 3 y ears (f rom 21 years to 18 years ) would theref ore pr o du ce se nt en ce s u na ut ho r ize d b y law
. Ac co r di ng ly, the only remedy avai la ble to t he def

endan t is the wi thdrawal of

hi s guilty ple a. Ac co r di ng ly, we rev er seth e ju dg men t o f t he cir cu it co ur t o f Ka ne Co un t y su mmar ily dismissing

t he de fendant 's po st co nvictio n pet itio n and r emand t o a fford t he de fendant t he option of withdrawin

g hi s guil ty plea i f h e so elects. Reversed a

nd rem anded. ZENO FF , P.J., an

d BUR KE, J ., conc

ur.