No. 2—09—0082 Opin ion f il ed March 14, 2011

______________________________________________________________________________ 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 Win ne ba go Co un t y. ) Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, ) ) v. ) No. 06—CF—1216 ) JA MES E. EDMONSO

N, a/k /a Ma rtin L. ) Ed monso n, ) Ho no r ab le ) Joseph G. McGraw, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) Judge, Presi din g.

______________________________________________________________________________ JUS TI CE HUT CHI NS ON d elivered t he judg ment o f the co ur t , w ith o pinion. Jus t ices Mc Lar en and Hud so n co ncur re d in t he judg ment a nd o pinion. OPINI ON De f en da n t, Jam es E. Edmonson, appeal

s the trial co ur t ’s de nia l o f his mo t io n t o wit hd r aw his gui l ty ple a to bu rgl ary (72 0 IL CS 5/1 9—1 (a)(West 200 6)) an d pos se ss i on

o f a s t o len mo t o rve hic le (625 ILCS 5/4—1 03(a) (We st 2006 )). As part of the plea

agr eement , t he pa rt ies ag re ed t o c ap t he sentence at 20 y ears , re s ulti

ng i n a n egotiated plea an

d a sentenc e that could not be chal le nged through a m

oti on to reconsider the sentence and an appeal from a deni al of such a m ot ion. SeeI ll. S. Ct. R. 604(d) (eff. Ju ly

1, 2 006 ); People v. Linder , 186 Ill . 2d67, 74 (1999). Defendan t contends t ha t he sho uld be allo we d t o wit hd r aw his p lea be ca us e h is counsel mi si nf ormed him t ha t he wo uld be abl e to chall enge h is sentence and be ca us e h e w o uld no t ha ve ple ad ed gu ilt y had he be en co rr ec t lyNo. 2—09—0082

-2-

in form ed. Because def

endan t’s deci sion to ple ad guilty was base d o n affirmative misrepr ese nt at ions of co unse l, we det er mine that t he plea was not volu nt ar y, and we r ever se a nd r emand w ith d irect ions to allow hi

m to withdraw h

is ple a. Defend ant wa s c ha r ge d in Jul y 200 6 w i th b urg l ary , ag gra va ted pos se ss i on

of a stol en motor veh ic le , and un

la wful possession of stolen

propert y (720 ILC S 5/16—1 (West 2006)), and he was arrested i n Fe b ru ar y 20 07 . H e i

n i ti al l y wa s rel ea se d on b ond wi th th e c ondi ti on s th at h e rep ort to pretrial servi ces at least once per week and that he su bm it to weekly

drug testing. In Septem ber 2007, a hea ring w as he ld beca use defend ant had n ot properly

report ed to pr etrial

ser vices. Defend ant presented evi dence that he h

ad obtain ed a ful l-ti me job a nd ha d relocat ed. He sai d t ha t he f orgot abo ut t he r equ irement that he notif y pretri al servi ces of an y c han ge i n resi dence. Def

endan t’s wif e, Berni ce Jone s, testified t hat t he co uple s upp or t ed s ix children, t wo of w hom we re fat her ed by de fen da nt , an d t ha t she r elie d o n d efe nd an t ’s inc o me t o he lp supp ort the f am i l y . Af ter t he h earin g, de fe nd an t ’s bo nd wa s in cr ea se d, an d h e w as t ak en int o cu st o dy. In Oct obe r 2 007 , d efenda nt was of f ered a p l ea ag re em en t, a n d h e a sk ed f or th e op por tun i ty to consul t with Jones b efore m

aki ng a decision about it. The case was co nt in ued until Novem ber 2007, wh en t he pa rt ies pr es en t ed t he ag r ee men t t o t he co ur t . De fen da nt ’s at t o rne y, C hr iss ie L ee , t o ld t he cou rt that , in exchange for defendant’s “op en” guil ty plea to t he ch

arges, the Stat e would agree to co ncur re nt sent encing w ith a s ent encing c ap o f 20 year s o f incarc er at ion. The Stat e would also amendthe ch arg e of ag gr ava t ed po ss es sio n o f a stolen m ot or vehicl e to sim

ple possession of a stolen
m otorvehicle, t o mo re clos ely fi t t he fact s o f the ca se , an d it wo uld dismiss the po sses sion- of- st olenproperty ch arg e. The

re wasno a

gre em en t on whether the di sm

is sed charge could be used agains tNo. 2—09—0082

-3-

defend ant i

n s en ten ci ng , an d L eesa i d that she

ha d e xp l ai ne d to de f

en da nt th at the c ourt w asnot bou nd by t he St at e’s s ent encing r eco mmendat ion. The cou rt adm oni sh ed de f en da n t, in cl udin g tell in g hi m that he would be sentenced as a Cl ass Xoffend er subjec t t o a sent encing ra nge o f 12 t o 6 0 year s’ incar cer at ion. Defend ant st at ed t hat he understood. A

f actual b as i s was gi v en, w h i ch i n cl uded de f en da n t’s con f es si on to t he off enses . When t he co ur t ask ed d efenda nt whether an y threats or promi ses had been mad e t o ge t him t o pl ea d g ui lt y, defen dant sta ted , “ [e] xc ep t f

or th e op en

plea , no.” The

cou rt ac ce pte d the p l ea

an d or dered a pr ese nt ence invest igat ion. The pr ese nt ence invest igat ion r epo rt sho wed t hat defend ant was 32 yea rs o f age, marr ied, and helping to supportsi

x ch il dren. Wh il e defe ndan t was releas ed on bond, he worked full time, ea rning ap proximat ely

$3 50 pe r w ee k. He had se ven pr evio us felo ny co nvict io ns o f bur gla ry, t heft , an d escape. Defend ant earned a GED i n 1997. He at t ende d so me co llege class es w hile incarce ra t ed a nd
was eig ht cr ed it hou

rs sh ort of a degree i n cul in ary arts. Def

endan t had been a gang m em ber between t he ages of 14and 22, but he pa rt icipat ed in a r enunc iatio n pr og ra m while incarce ra t ed. Defend ant report ed that he was rai sed i n a dy sf unctiona l ho me w it h a n a lco ho lic father wh o phys ic ally

abused his m other. Defe

ndan t began sn ort in g heroin when he was 17 a

nd used i t intraven ously after he was 21 . He als o ha d p r o ble ms w it h a lco ho l. At t he sent encing heari

ng, the State presented witness es who spoke about damages caused by defen dant’s cri me s, in cl udin g $1,500 to the veh

ic le that defenda

nt to ok. The Stat e then

so ught
re st itu t ion. The St at e also ask ed t hat t he co ur t impose 20 yea rs o f incarc er at ion. Defend ant asked

for l eni ency with “a sentenc e l ower t han 20 ye ars” and prese

nted evi dence in mi tigation f rom Jones. Jones

testifi ed that she discovered

def endan t’s dr ug prob l em

shortly be f oreNo. 2—09—0082

-4-

they we r e ma rr ied in 2 00 5. Sh e w as eig ht mo n th s p re gn an t at t ha t t ime. Sh e s aid t ha t , wh ile defend ant was out o n bond, he wa s n ot us i ng dru gs . Jon essta ted tha t two of her si x chi l dren were fathered by def endan t but tha t all l ooked to hi

m as a f athe r f i gure. Defend ant had ne ver been a busive to her or the children, he wasinvolved in t he chi ldren ’s education, he partici pated in their disci

pli ne, and h e h el pe d to s uppor t th e f am i l y f i n an ci al l y . J on es testi f i ed th at sh e w as

em pl oy ed b ut u n ab l e to support t he f

am il y on h er in come al one. Defend ant pr ovid ed a st at ement i n a l l ocuti on. He apologi

zed to t he v

ictim s of the off

enses and to his f

am i l y and sa i d tha t he c omm

i tted the cri

mes to try to get m on ey to s uppor

t hi s d ru g h ab i t. He sa i d th at, wh i l e h e w as i n ca rc erate d, h

e l ea rned ab out t he Na r co t ic s Ano nymous p ro gr am and took it seri ously. Af ter he was released

on bo nd, he had been d ru g- free and able t o ho ld a job fo r t he fi rst t im e. The cou rt s en ten ce d def en da n t to 15 y ea rs ’ i nc arc era ti on and ordere d restituti

on. The court also t old defend ant of his ap pea l right s, includ ing misadvisinghi m that, b ef ore he co uld ap pea l, he had to fi le withi n 30 day s a wri tt en m ot ion to reconsi der the sentence or t o withdraw

th e g ui l ty ple a. Defendan t mov ed to re con

si der the s en

ten ce . Af ter a h ea ri n g, t h e tr i al cou rt d en ie d defendant’s moti on, an

d de f en da nt te nd ere d a noti ceof appe al . There

wa s th en som e di scus si on of whether a Rule 604(d) certif

i ca te was re qui re d, w i th the p arti es c oncl

udi ng th at one was u

nn ece ssa ry because defen dant was appeal

in g only the sentence
. On May 16, 2008, we reman

ded based on the lac k of

a Rul e 604 (d) ce

rtif i cate. People v. Edmonson , No. 2—08—0031 (2008) (unpubli shed order under Supreme Co urt Rul e 23 ). In t he order, we also not ed t hat , be cau se t he St at e ag re ed t o a sent encing c ap, t he plea w as ne go t iate d. As
a resul t, defendan

t had no righ

t t o move to reconsider

hi s sen tence and could move

only to withdrawNo. 2—09—0082

-5-

his pl ea . We ordere d th

at, on reman

d, defen dant be adm

onis hed of the requi

remen ts of Rul e 604(d)
asi t pe rtai ns to ne gotiate d pl

ea s a nd be perm i tted to f i l e a ne w m oti on i f he ch ose to do s o. On rem and, def endan t was a dm oni shed of

Rul e 604 (d), and h

e m oved to withdraw h

is ple a. In t he mo t io n, he alle ge d t ha t he did no t kn o win gly, int ell igen tl y , or v ol un tar i l y wai v e h i s r i gh ts because he did no t unde rst and t he court ’s adm onis hm ents and h is counsel was i nef fecti ve. Lee also fi le d a m ot io n t o wit hdraw as couns el . The court allowed Lee to withdraw an

d appoin ted new
co un se l. At t he hear ing o n t he moti on to wi th draw th e p l ea , L ee

testi f i ed th at sh e h

ad con su l ted wi th defend ant abo ut his op t ions w ith r esp ect t o t he “ope n pl ea.” She s ai d th at sh e tol d def en da n t th at, if h e acc ep ted

th e S tate ’s

of f er wi th t he se nt en cin g c ap , he co uld st ill challenge t he se nt ence by fi ling
a motion to reconside

r sentence an

d by appealin g if that motion were d en ied
. Sh e s aid t hat she dis cussed t hat matt er wit h defend ant on s ever al oc cas ions. Defend ant pr ovid ed s imi lar t est imony and
sa id t ha t , if Le e h ad no t t o ld h im t hat he wo uld have the

righ t to chal l en gehi s s en ten ce , h e w oul

d n ot h av e en tered th e p l ea ag re em en t. The record shows that the p arti es a nd th e tri al courtmist ak en ly belie ve d t ha t de fen da nt co uld attack his sent ence as e xces sive on ap peal f rom th e den i al of the m otion to with draw th e pl ea. See People v. Spriggl

e , 358 Ill . App. 3d 447, 454 (2005) ( by ag r ee ing t o ple ad gu ilt y in exchange f

or a recomm ended sentenci ng cap, a def

endan t agrees not t o challe

ngeany sentence im posed bel ow that cap on the gro und that it is excess ive , in cl udi ng on appe al f rom a motion to with draw th e pl ea). Thus, af t er so me d isc us sio n a bo ut de fe nd an t ’s ab ilit y t o appeal, the court found that Lee had mi sadvised de fen da nt bu t t ha t he ha d n o t su ffer ed pr eju dic e, be ca us e h e me r ely ha d n o t be en t o ld

ofNo. 2—09—0082

-6-

t he cor re ct m an n er i n wh i ch to att ack th

e l en gth of h i s se nten ce. A ccordi ngl y , the c ourt denied t he
mo t io n t o wit hd r aw t he ple a. De fen da nt filed a t imely no t ice o f ap pe al. Defend ant con

ten dsth at h e sh oul d b e a l l owe d to withdraw h

is ple a becaus e his counsel

was in eff ective. He a rg ues t hat he wo uld no t have plead ed g uilty had he been c or re ct ly i nfor med t hat he
wo uld n ot b e a

b l e to c h al l en ge th e l en gth of his sen tence, whi

ch he st at es w as e xces sive beca use t he trial court failed t o c ons ider var iou s mitigat ing fact or s. T he St at e co nced es t hat defens e co uns e l inc o rr ec t ly

ad v i se d def en da n t b ut c on ten dsth at def

en da n t w as no t ent itled to withdraw hi s plea, beca use he did no t pr o vid e e vid en ce t ha t he is a ct ua lly in nocent and b ecause h

e was not prejudi

ced by the mi si nf ormation, as h

is sentence was not excess iv

e. A de f en da n t h as n o ab sol ute ri gh t to withdraw

a pl ea of gui l ty. People v. Jamison , 19 7 I ll. 2d 135, 16 3 (200 1); People v. Cant erbury , 313 Ill . App. 3d 9 14, 917(20 00) . “Ra the r, he m us t sh ow ‘a manifest injustice unde r t he fact s involved ’ t o o bt ain leave to with draw h i s pl ea.” Jamison, 197 I ll. 2d at 163 (quot in

g People v. Pullen , 192 Ill . 2d36, 39 (2000)). T he def endan t bears the burden of showi ng th e nece ssi ty f or wi thdra wal
. Canterbury , 313 Ill . App. 3d at 917. Withdrawal i s ap pr o pr iat e if

the guil ty plea was ent er ed t hro ugh a misappr ehens ion o f the fact s o r o f the law, t he defen dant hasa def

ense worth y of consi derati on, or there

i s doubt of

t he de fendant ’s gu ilt and t he endsof j ustice woul

d be better serv

ed b y sub m i ttin g the cas e to a tri al
. Jamison , 197 Ill . 2d at 163. Howev er, we may reverse the tri al court’s rul i ng on l y i f the c ourt abu sed

i ts di scre tion
. Id
. Here, asthe

basis f or wi thd raw i ng hi s p l ea , de f en da nt rel i ed on co unse l’s advice t hat he co uld chal le ngehi s s en ten ce . A de f en da nt m i gh t en ter a gui l ty plea be ca us e of counsel ’s erroneous advi

ce orom i ss i ons , but th

i s f ac t al one doe s n ot de stroy t he vo lunt ar y natu re of t he plea. People v. Pugh , 157 Ill . 2d

1, 1 4 (1 993 ); se e al so Peo p le v. Huante , 1 43 I ll. 2d 6 1, 72- 73 ( 199 1) . Whe t her t heNo. 2—09—0082

-7-

defendant’s ple a was volun tary depen

ds on whether

t he de fen da nt ha d e ffec t ive as sis t an ce o f co un se l. Pugh , 157 Ill . 2dat 14. To establ is h that hi s counsel

was i nef fecti ve, the def

endan t must show that (1) cou nsel’s

performa nce was obje ctive ly

unreasonable ; an

d (2) the defe

ndan t suff ered prejudi

ce as a resu l t. Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (19 84) ; Pugh , 1 57 I ll. 2d a t 14. To pr ove “prej udi ce,” the de f en da nt m us t sh owa re aso nable pr oba bili

t y that , a bsent co unse l’s er ro rs, he o r she
wo uld n ot h av

e p l eade d g

ui l ty and w ou ld have in

si sted on going to tr ia

l. See People v. Rissley , 206 I ll. 2d 403, 457 (20 03) ; Pugh , 157 Ill . 2d at 15. I f ei ther prong of the Strickland t est is not met, t he def endan t’s c l ai m f ail s. People v. Perry , 224 Il l . 2d 312 , 342 (2 007). The re ar e t wo ca se s p r imar ily

appl i ca bl e to th i s a ppe al . De f

en da nt rel i eson People v. Correa, 108 Ill . 2d541, 55 1-52 (1 985), to argue that any aff irm ative mi srepresentation b

y c ounsel that causes t he defend ant to ple a d g uilt y re su lt s in p r eju dic e. T he St at e, ho we ve r , r elie s o n o ur de cis io n in Spriggle for the argum

ent that defen

dant did n ot suf fer any prejudi ce becaus e he h

as not shown that hi s sen tence was ex

cessi ve. In Spriggle , th e def

en da nt a gre ed to plead gu

i l ty i n e xc ha ng e f or the Sta te’ s a gre em en t not to seek the death pen al ty. He w as se nt ence d t o 6 0 year s’ incar cer at ion, his mot ion t o r eco nsider t he sentence was deni ed, and he appealed. On appeal, we determin ed that , because the defe

ndan t entered
a ne gotiate d gu

i l ty plea , h e c oul

d n ot fi le a m ot ion to reconsi der hi s sen tence and i

nstead wasrequired to mov e to withdraw h

is ple a. On rem

and, the def

endan t’s motion to withdraw the pl ea was deni ed, and he ap pea led, ar guing t hat he misapp re hende d t he law a bou t his abili t y to challenge t he sentence , based on mi srepresentat io ns o f h is co unse l and inco rr ect admo nishments by the t rial co ur t . We aff irm ed for t wo rea sons.No. 2—09—0082

-8-

Fi rs t, we d et er mined t hat , a t t he t ime of t he pl ea , the l aw al l owe d a de f en da n t to challenge t he l en gth of a n eg oti ate d se nt en ce viaa mo t io n t o r ec o nsid er . I t wa s a ft er t he ple a t ha t o ur su pr eme courthel d that a sentenceresul

ting f rom a negotiated pl

ea could n

ot be ch alle nged wi th a m otion to recon sider. See Linder , 186 Il l . 2d at 74
. Thus, a t t he time of the plea, t he defendant’s co unse l and t he court adv

i sed hi m correctl y and di d not m ake “ ‘af f i rm ati ve m i sreprese ntati on[s ].’ ” Spriggle , 358 Ill . App. 3d at 452 (distin guis hi ng Correa , 108 Il

l . 2d at 55 1-52). Second, we d ete

rm i n ed th at th e def en da n t di d n ot s uf f er pr ej udi ce

f rom h i s i n ab i li ty to chal le ngehi s sen

tence. We observ

ed that the defen

da n t a rgued that the tria l court did not af

f ord proper weight to ce rtain mi tigating f acto rs, and we

noted that asking the appe ll ate court to rebal

ance t he factors would not chan ge the outco me

of his case. Thus, we

he l d tha t the trial courtdid not abuse it s di screti

on by deny in g the motion to withdraw the pl ea, because

the sentence

was not excess iv

e. Id. at 453 . We then also hel d that , despite havi

ng j ust addressed the sev

erity of the sen tence i n re gard t o t he de fen da nt ’s ab ilit y t o wit hd r aw his p lea , we wo uld no t sp ec ifica lly an d s ep ar at ely

re view t he is sue o n app ea l fro m t he de nia l o f t he mo t io n t o wi thd raw the plea , b ec au se

a def en da nt m ay not chal l enge the se

veri ty of a negoti ated s en

tenc e on a

ppea l
. Id. at 454. In Correa , t he de fen da nt wa s a llo we d t o wit hd r aw his guil ty pleas af ter he was m

is in form ed that t he plea s wo uld no t likely result in depo rt at ion. The re was no indicat ion t hat t he de fendant had
a particular defen

se, that his

sentence would ha

ve b een le s s had he pr oc eed ed t o t rial, o r t hat he
wo uld not be deport ed

had he pr oc eed ed t o t rial. N ot ing t he dr ast ic co nseq uenc e o f dep or t at ion, our su pr eme court f

ound th at the p l eas

were not vol unta ry . Correa , 108 Ill . 2d at 550 -51 . In doi ng so, t he cour t found prejudice i n that t he m

isreprese nt at io ns were a p rimary facto r in the defendant’s de cisi on t o ple ad gu ilt y and t ha t he wo uld not have d one so had he be en correctl y adv i sed
. Id. at 553.No. 2—09—0082

-9-

Of par t icular impor t ance is tha t in Spriggle , we distingui shed Correa o n t he bas is tha t t he defend ant in Spriggle

was not af

f i rm ati ve l y m i sled. Spriggle, 35 8 I ll. A pp . 3d at 45 2. I nd ee d, in Spriggle , the defen

dant was correctly

advised of the l

aw as i t exis ted at t he tim

e of the plea. We fi nd Correa c ont ro lli

ng in t his app eal. Unlike in Spriggle , where the def endan t was co rr ec t ly i nf orm ed base d on t he law at t he t ime of t he plea , it is clear t hat defend ant in the c ur re nt ma tt er wa s a ffirmat ive ly misinfo rmed ab o ut his a bilit y t o ch alle ng e h is sentence . The law was cl ear that he co uld no t ch alle ng e h is s en t en ce , yet Le e r ep ea t ed ly t o ld him t ha t he co uld ch alle ng e it if he did not agr ee w ith it . T est imony from Leeand d efenda nt clear ly showe d t hat defend ant re lied on t he mi si nf ormation wh

en he en tered his ple a and that i

t play ed a key role i n hi s deci sion. Thus, counsel
wa s in ef fe ct ive , an d d ef

en da nt ’s pl ea wa s n o t vo lunt ar y. The Stat e argues that defen dant has f aile d to show prej udic e becaus e he h as not shown that his se nten ce was ex ces si ve . Ho we ve r , be ca us e h is co un se l affir mat ive ly misinfo rmed him, t he o nly prejudi ce neces sary

was that, absen

t t he m is in form ation, he would not have pl eaded guilt y. To t he ext ent t hat in Spriggle

we di scussed wh

ether the sentence

was exc essi

ve to determin

e prejudi ce, we dec line to do so in defenda nt ’s ca se. In Spriggle , the defen dant was correct ly

in form ed about the law at the tim e of hi s plea and we e

xpressl y di stin guis hed Correaon that basi s. But in the present case, unl ike in Spriggle , de f

en da n t wa s af f i rm ati v el y m i si n f orm ed at theti m e of

the ple a. That
m i si nf orm ati on was centr al to hi s dec i si on to plead gu

i l ty , re sul ti ng i n prejudi cebe ca us e h e w oul d n ot have pleade d gu

i l ty ha d he k now n th at he c oul d n ot challenge his sent ence . We f ur th er ob se rve th at, at the heari

ng on the m

ot ion to withdraw the pl

ea, both the parties an

d the trial court mi stake nly bel ie ved t hat defend ant co uld at t ack his sent ence as e xces sive o n app eal fro m the d enial of t he moti onNo. 2—09—0082

-10-

to withdraw the pl

ea. Thus, the trial

court ’s decision at that hearing was a l so b as ed on misi nfor matio n. Because de f

en da nt’ s c oun se l

af f i rm ati ve l y m i si nf orm ed hi m of the la wand he wo uld no t have ple aded guil ty ha d he b een correctly

in form ed, we determi

ne that defendant’s pl ea wa s in vo lunt ar y. Defend ant wa s e nt it led t o wit hd r aw his ple a. Ac co r din gly, t he jud gme nt o f t he cir cu it court of Winne bago Co unt y is rever sed , a nd t he ca use is remand ed w ith d irect ions t hat defend ant b e allowed to withdraw hi

s plea. Reversed and reman

ded with directions.