2017 IL 122271

IN THE

SUPREME COURT

OF

THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

(Docket No. 122271) 

DANNY ROUND, Petitioner, v. NICHOLAS LAMB, 

Warden of Lawrence Correctional Center, et al., Respondents. 

Opinion filed August 3, 2017.

JUSTICE GARMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. 

Chief Justice Karmeier and Justices Freeman, Thomas, Kilbride, Burke, and 

Theis concurred in the judgment and opinion. 

OPINION

¶ 1 Petitioner, Danny Round, is presently incarcerated and seeks immediate release 

on the basis that he has already served his entire sentence, including two years of 

mandatory supervised release. This court allowed his motion for leave to file a 

complaint for habeas corpus or, in the alternative, for an order of mandamus. 
- 2 - 

¶ 2 BACKGROUND

¶ 3 Petitioner was charged with six counts of violating an order of protection (720 

ILCS 5/12-3.4(a) (West 2012) and two related counts of witness harassment (720 

ILCS 5/32-4a(a)(2) (West 2012)). On July 2, 2013, he pleaded guilty to two 

charges with the understanding that the other charges would be dropped and his 

sentences would be served concurrently. On count I, harassment of a witness, a 

Class 2 felony, he was sentenced to five years in prison to be followed by two years 

of mandatory supervised release (MSR). On count III, violation of an order of 

protection, a Class 4 felony, he was sentenced to three years in prison. By statute, a 

sentence for violating an order of protection includes a four-year MSR term. 730 

ILCS 5/5-8-1(d)(6) (West 2016). However, no term of MSR connected to that 

conviction was mentioned during plea negotiations, during the sentencing hearing, 

or in the written sentencing order. 

¶ 4 Petitioner completed the three-year prison sentence for count III on September 

23, 2014, and the five-year prison sentence for count I on September 23, 2015. He 

was “violated at the door” for failure to identify a suitable host site for electronic 

monitoring. Because he accrued day-for-day credit for serving his MSR while 

incarcerated, his two-year MSR term would have been completed on September 23, 

2016. However, a disciplinary matter resulted in revocation of three months of his 

day-for-day credit, postponing his release from the two-year MSR term until 

December 23, 2016. He was not released on that date, however, because the Illinois 

Department of Corrections asserted that his sentence included a four-year MSR 

term by law and that the four-year term did not start until the completion of the 

five-year prison sentence. According to the Department of Corrections, petitioner’s 

discharge date is currently set for December 23, 2017. 

¶ 5 Within six months of when petitioner began serving his sentence, he learned 

that the Department of Corrections considered his sentence to include a four-year 

MSR term for count III. On October 15, 2013, petitioner filed a section 2-1401 

petition (735 ILCS 5/2-1401 (West 2012)), which was recharacterized as a petition 

for postconviction relief. The circuit court of Cook County conceded that it had not 

informed petitioner of the four-year MSR term on count III, noting that the court 

had failed to realize that although count III was a lesser class felony than count I, it 

carried a longer MSR term. At a hearing on December 6, 2013, the court stated that 
- 3 - 

it would allow petitioner to withdraw his guilty plea to both counts; petitioner 

declined to withdraw his plea. The circuit court reasoned petitioner had been 

generally informed that he was subject to mandatory supervised release, despite 

petitioner’s allegation that he was never specifically admonished regarding the 

four-year term of MSR. The court rejected petitioner’s request to modify his 

sentence and on July 23, 2014, granted the State’s motion to dismiss. Petitioner 

filed a notice of appeal on August 1, 2014. He was granted three extensions of time 

to file his opening brief. The final deadline was August 4, 2015, but no briefs have 

been filed. Petitioner’s motion to this court does not explain why he failed to file a 

brief. 

¶ 6 Petitioner first filed an emergency motion for an order of habeas corpus in this 

court in October 2016, before his two-year MSR term was complete. The court 

denied the motion. Petitioner filed a second motion in February 2017. The court 

appointed counsel and dismissed the case without prejudice to file an amended 

motion, action, or petition, by counsel. Petitioner, with the assistance of counsel, 

then filed the motion before the court today. 

¶ 7 ANALYSIS

¶ 8 Petitioner argues he is entitled to immediate release from custody and seeks an 

order of habeas corpus or, alternatively, mandamus. This court has original 

jurisdiction over petitions for habeas and mandamus. Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, 

§ 4(a). To be entitled to release from custody pursuant to an order of habeas, a 

petitioner must demonstrate that he has been “incarcerated under a judgment of a 

court that lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter or the person of the petitioner, or 

[that] there has been some occurrence subsequent to the prisoner’s conviction that 

entitles him to release.” Beacham v. Walker, 231 Ill. 2d 51, 58 (2008); see 735 

ILCS 5/10-124 (West 2016). To be entitled to an order of mandamus, a petitioner 

must establish “ ‘a clear right to relief, a clear duty of the public official to act, and 

a clear authority in the public official to comply with the writ.’ ” Cordrey v. 

Prisoner Review Board, 2014 IL 117155, ¶ 18 (quoting People ex rel. Madigan v. 

Snyder, 208 Ill. 2d 457, 465 (2004)). “There also must be no other adequate 

remedy.” Id.
- 4 - 

¶ 9 Petitioner argues several bases for relief. First, he contends that because the 

sentencing order did not include any term of MSR for count III, he has not been 

sentenced to any such term and the Department of Corrections cannot add such a 

term to his sentence. Second, he argues that, even if he is subject to a four-year term 

of MSR, the term started when he completed his three-year prison sentence for 

count III and would have been completed on December 23, 2016. Finally, 

petitioner asserts that failure to amend his sentence in such a way so that he does 

not serve more than seven years in custody denies him the benefit of the bargain he 

made when agreeing to plead guilty and thus violates his due process rights. 

¶ 10 Whether Petitioner’s Count III Sentence Included 

 a Four-Year Term of MSR 

¶ 11 This court has previously addressed whether a term of MSR is included as a 

matter of law regardless of whether it is included in a sentencing order. In People v. 

McChriston, the defendant was convicted of a Class X felony and sentenced to 25 

years’ imprisonment. 2014 IL 115310, ¶ 1. The order did not mention MSR, nor did 

the judge admonish the defendant regarding MSR at the sentencing hearing. Id. The 

defendant filed a postconviction petition arguing the Department of Corrections 

impermissibly added a three-year MSR term to his sentence. Id. ¶ 3. The court 

looked to the plain language of section 5-8-1 of the Unified Code of Corrections, 

which at that time stated that “ ‘[e]xcept where a term of natural life is imposed, 

every sentence shall include as though written therein a term in addition to the term 

of imprisonment.’ ” Id. ¶ 9 (quoting 730 ILCS 5/5-8-1(d) (West 2004)). The court 

concluded that “the sentencing order issued by the trial court included a term of 

MSR even if the court did not mention the MSR term at the sentencing hearing or in 

the sentencing order.” Id. ¶ 17. 

¶ 12 The language of that statute has since been amended: in 2009, the phrase “as 

though written therein” was eliminated (Pub. Act 95-1052 (eff. July 1, 2009)), and 

in 2012, the requirement that the mandatory supervised release term “shall be 

written as part of the sentencing order” was added (Pub. Act 97-531, § 5 (eff. Jan. 1, 

2012)). Petitioner notes that the court in McChriston pointed to this amendment as 

evidence that, at that time, a sentence included a term of MSR regardless of 
- 5 - 

whether the term was included in the written sentencing order. McChriston, 2014 

IL 115310, ¶¶ 18-19. 

¶ 13 Certainly, the statute now requires judges to include MSR in their written 

sentencing orders. What is not clear is the effect of failure to comply with that 

requirement. The answer turns on whether the requirement is directory or 

mandatory. Procedural commands to government officials—here, the command to 

trial judges to include the appropriate MSR term in their written sentencing 

orders—are presumed to be directory. People v. Geiler, 2016 IL 119095, ¶ 18; 

People v. Delvillar, 235 Ill. 2d 507, 517 (2009). “The presumption is overcome *** 

only if (1) negative language in the statute *** prohibits further action in the case of 

noncompliance or (2) the right the statute *** is designed to protect would 

generally be injured under a directory reading.” Geiler, 2016 IL 119095, ¶ 18 

(citing Delvillar, 235 Ill. 2d at 517). 

¶ 14 The statute does not include any negative language prohibiting further action in 

the case of noncompliance. It prescribes no result for situations in which the judge 

fails to include the MSR term in the written order. 

¶ 15 Legislative history indicates that the requirement was designed to provide 

greater clarity for the Department of Corrections. 97th Ill. Gen. Assem., House 

Proceedings, May 17, 2011, at 48 (statements of Representative Cunningham) 

(describing the bill as “an initiative of the Illinois Department of Corrections” and 

noting “the Bill would *** require judges to enter the specific length of parole that 

each inmate needs to spend after their sentence’s done. In the actual sentencing 

order that they issue in court. They’re not required to do that right now, creates 

confusion sometimes at intake for the Illinois Department of Corrections, and they 

have to contact a sentencing judge as frequently to make sure they enter the right 

parole information into their record system.”). Even if the requirement was also 

designed to protect the rights of persons being sentenced, such rights are not 

generally at risk if the statute is given a directory reading. Defendants have a right 

to be admonished of the full consequences before pleading guilty (People v. 

Whitfield, 217 Ill. 2d 177, 188 (2005)), but giving the statute a directory reading 

does not, on its own, violate that right. See People v. Evans, 2013 IL 113471, ¶ 13 

(concluding a petitioner could not establish cause to bring a successive 

postconviction petition based on the court’s failure to include a term of MSR in a 
- 6 - 

sentencing order because “ ‘all citizens are charged with knowledge of the law’ ” 

and the law was clear that the petitioner’s sentence must include a term of MSR 

(quoting People v. Lander, 215 Ill. 2d 577, 588 (2005)). Thus, the requirement is 

directory.

¶ 16 When a requirement is directory, “no specific consequence is triggered by 

noncompliance.” Geiler, 2016 IL 119095, ¶ 24. A petitioner must show he was 

prejudiced to be entitled to relief for a violation of a directory rule. Id. ¶ 25. 

Petitioner agrees that the requirement is directory but maintains that failure to 

comply with the requirement bars the Department of Corrections from enforcing 

the MSR term. Under petitioner’s interpretation, a judge could avoid imposing 

MSR by failing to write the term in the sentencing order. This would impermissibly 

allow the court to overrule the legislature’s directive. Whitfield, 217 Ill. 2d at 

200-01 (“We recognize that MSR terms are statutorily required and that ‘the State 

has no right to offer the withholding of such a period as a part of the plea 

negotiations and *** the court has no power to withhold such period in imposing 

sentence.’ ” (quoting People v. Brown, 296 Ill. App. 3d 1041, 1043 (1998)). 

Therefore, we conclude the MSR term is included in the sentence as a matter of law 

and that the failure to include the term in the written sentencing order does not on 

its own invalidate the sentence or any part of it. 

¶ 17 Furthermore, this interpretation is consistent with the section 5-4.5-15 

requirement that all sentences, except natural life sentences, include an MSR term. 

730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-15(c) (West 2016); see also People v. Viverette, 2016 IL App 

(1st) 122954, ¶ 24 (“Section 5-8-1(d)(1) read in conjunction with section 

5-4.5-15(c) makes it clear that the MSR term was a mandatory component of 

defendant’s sentence and that it was imposed by the court and not the DOC.”); 

People v. Ford, 2014 IL App (1st) 130147, ¶ 7 (also reading section 5-8-1(d) in 

conjunction with section 5-4.5-15(c)). 

¶ 18 Whether the Count III MSR Term Began to Run Concurrently 

 With the Count I Prison Term 

¶ 19 Alternatively, petitioner argues that he has already completed four years of 

MSR. He contends MSR begins as soon as the corresponding prison term is 

completed, regardless of whether the prisoner is still in prison serving another 
- 7 - 

sentence. The Department of Corrections counters that any MSR terms cannot 

commence until all prison sentences are completed. 

¶ 20 The Unified Code of Corrections provides an answer for the manner in which 

MSR is served in the context of consecutive sentences but says nothing regarding 

MSR and concurrent sentences. Section 5-8-4(g) provides that, for consecutive 

sentences, the defendant must serve all consecutive prison terms and then serve the 

MSR term for the most serious offense. 730 ILCS 5/5-8-4(g) (West 2016). It is 

logical to conclude the legislature also intended for a prisoner serving concurrent 

sentences to complete all prison terms before beginning MSR. See 730 ILCS 

5/5-4.5-45(l) (West 2016) (“[T]he parole or mandatory supervised release term 

shall be one year upon release from imprisonment.” (Emphasis added.)). Although 

petitioner in this case was violated at the door and therefore has been serving MSR 

in the Lawrence Correctional Center, it would be illogical to hold that a prisoner 

can simultaneously be serving a prison term and be on supervised release. Compare 

730 ILCS 5/5-1-10 (West 2016) (defining “imprisonment” as “incarceration in a 

correctional institution under a sentence of imprisonment”), and Black’s Law 

Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) (defining “imprisonment” as “The act of confining a 

person, esp. in a prison ***. *** The quality, state, or condition of being confined 

***.”), with Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) (defining “release” as “The 

action of freeing or the fact of being freed from restraint or confinement ***.”). 

¶ 21 Mandatory supervised release is designed to facilitate reintegration back into 

society, a purpose distinct from serving time in prison. See 730 ILCS 5/3-3-7(a) 

(West 2016) (indicating that the conditions of MSR “shall be such as the Prisoner 

Review Board deems necessary to assist the subject in leading a law-abiding life” 

and setting out a list of conditions for every parole and MSR that are designed for 

life outside of prison); see also 80th Ill. Gen. Assem., Senate Proceedings, Nov. 22, 

1977, at 98-99 (statements of Senator Graham) (discussing the legislature’s intent 

to reduce recidivism and the benefit of maintaining custody over offenders for a 

period of time after they are released from prison). Allowing an offender to avoid 

serving MSR because he has been convicted of multiple offenses is clearly contrary 

to this purpose, particularly in the context of an offender who is subject to an 

extended MSR term. 730 ILCS 5/5-8-1(d)(6) (West 2016). 
- 8 - 

¶ 22 Petitioner relies on In re Detention of Gavin, 382 Ill. App. 3d 946 (2008), to 

support his argument that he ought to be able to serve his MSR term concurrently 

with his prison term. In Gavin, the defendant was arrested while on MSR. The case 

did not involve concurrent sentences, and the appellate court did not address the 

viability of serving MSR and a prison sentence concurrently. Therefore, 

petitioner’s reliance on Gavin is inapposite. 

¶ 23 Whether Petitioner’s Due Process Rights Have Been Violated

¶ 24 Finally, petitioner argues the court should order his immediate release because 

enforcing the four-year MSR term violates his due process rights. Petitioner 

pleaded guilty in exchange for a three-year and a five-year prison sentence, to be 

served concurrently, and a two-year MSR term, for a total of seven years in 

custody. Petitioner contends that requiring him to serve a four-year MSR term 

denies him the benefit of the bargain he made, because it would extend his total 

time in custody to nine years. “[W]hen a plea rests in any significant degree on a 

promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the 

inducement or consideration, such a promise must be fulfilled.” Santobello v. New 

York, 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971). 

¶ 25 In Whitfield, the defendant pleaded guilty to first degree murder in exchange for 

a 25-year prison sentence and to felony murder in exchange for a 6-year prison 

sentence, to be served concurrently. 217 Ill. 2d at 179. Neither the prosecutor nor 

the court advised the defendant that he would be subject to a 3-year term of MSR 

following the 25-year prison sentence. Id. at 180. After learning of the MSR term 

while serving the prison sentence, the defendant filed a postconviction petition 

arguing his due process rights were violated because the sentence was more 

onerous than what he had bargained for. Id. The defendant conceded that the court 

lacked the authority to strike the term of MSR but requested the court reduce his 

25-year prison term by the length of the MSR term. Id. at 187. He did not move to 

withdraw his guilty plea. Id. at 180. The court concluded that “[u]nder [the] 

circumstances *** adding the statutorily required three-year MSR term to 

defendant’s negotiated 25-year sentence amount[ed] to a unilateral modification 

and breach of the plea agreement by the State, inconsistent with constitutional 

concerns of fundamental fairness.” Id. at 190. The court then concluded that “due 
- 9 - 

process is violated when a defendant pleads guilty in exchange for a specific 

sentence and the trial court fails to advise the defendant, prior to accepting his plea, 

that a mandatory supervised release term will be added to that sentence.” Id. at 195. 

Relying on Santobello v. New York, the court identified two potential remedies for 

the due process violation: allow the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea or 

resentence the defendant in accordance with the statute and the plea agreement. 

Whitfield, 217 Ill. 2d at 202 (citing Santobello, 404 U.S. at 262-63). The court 

granted the defendant’s request and modified his sentence to conform to the plea 

agreement. Id. at 205. 

¶ 26 Petitioner argues he is entitled to the same relief—an adjustment to his sentence 

to create in effect the sentence he bargained for. Which remedy is appropriate 

depends on the unique facts and circumstances of each case. See Santobello, 404 

U.S. at 263 (remanding the case to the state court to determine whether withdrawal 

of the guilty plea or resentencing was appropriate). Unlike in Whitfield, petitioner 

had the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea just five months after the sentencing 

hearing and declined to do so. Id. at 180. At that time, petitioner had not yet 

substantially performed his part of the bargain. He filed a timely notice of appeal 

following the circuit court’s dismissal of his postconviction petition but failed to 

file a brief in the appellate court, despite multiple orders granting him extensions of 

time to do so. Petitioner offers no explanation for why he abandoned his efforts to 

resolve this issue in the appellate court. In light of these facts, petitioner has not 

proven he had a right to have his sentence reconfigured in this case. Therefore, he is 

not entitled to the extraordinary remedies of habeas or mandamus.

¶ 27 CONCLUSION

¶ 28 Despite amendments to the law since People v. McChriston was decided, the 

Unified Code of Corrections continues to indicate that a term of mandatory 

supervised release is a mandatory part of a sentence. The circuit court’s failure to 

comply with the requirement that the MSR term be included in the written 

sentencing order does not invalidate that part of the sentence. 

¶ 29 When, as here, an offender receives multiple, concurrent sentences including 

terms of MSR, the prison terms are to be served concurrently, and then the MSR 

terms are to be served concurrently to one another once all prison terms have been 
- 10 - 

completed. In most cases, this results in the offender serving the lengths of the 

prison and MSR terms of the most serious offense. In this case, however, the lesser 

felony—violation of an order of protection—carries a longer term of MSR than the 

more serious felony, resulting in a longer overall time in custody. 

¶ 30 Although neither the prosecutor nor the court had the authority to allow 

petitioner to avoid the longer MSR term, it is clear the court and petitioner believed 

petitioner was pleading guilty in exchange for a sentence of seven years in 

custody—five years in prison (the five- and three-year terms served concurrently) 

and two years of MSR. Enforcing the four-year MSR term extends the sentence to 

nine years. However, petitioner had an opportunity shortly after beginning to serve 

his prison sentence to withdraw his guilty plea in light of the error. Petitioner 

declined to withdraw his guilty plea at that time and has not proven a right to have 

his sentence reconfigured. The motion for an order of habeas or, in the alternative, 

for mandamus is denied. 

¶ 31 Writ denied.