Fi rs t Di vi si on June 29, 2007 No. 1-06- 0839 THE PEOPL

E OF TH E STATE OF IL LINO IS Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, v. EDW AR D STONE, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court of Coo k C oun

ty 03 CR 18115 03 CR 18117 03 CR 18118 03 CR 18119 Honorable Davi d P. Ster ba, Jud ge P re siding PR ESIDI NG JU STI CEMcBR

ID E de li v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: In March 2005, defen

dant, Edward St one, pleade d guil ty to four counts o f cri

mi nal sexual
as sa ul t an d on e c oun t of ag gr av ate d cri m i n al sex ual as sa ul t ar i si n g f rom a s eri es of i n di ctm en ts regar di ng th e ong oin g sexua l ass aul t of de f endan t’s m i nor s tepdau

ghter, A.K. The

tria l court sentence d defen

dant to t hree terms

of 15 y ears and one term

of 9 y ears f or t he cri mi nal sexual assaul t charges and 24 y

ears f or t he aggravated crim

in al sexual assaul t. All sentence s were to run con cu rrent w i th th e e xc ep ti on of

the two c oun

ts, on e term of 15 y ea rs an d a term of 9 y ea rs , f rom cas e n um ber 03 CR

18118 , whi ch

were to run consec

uti ve to each other. De f en da nt a ppe als, a rgu i ng tha t: (1 ) th e tri

al cou rt er red i n e nte ri ng a c onv i cti on f or ag gr av at ed cr iminal s ex ua l as sa ult in c as e n umb er 03 CR18 11 7; ( 2) t he t r ial c o ur t er r ed in deny in g defen dant’s m ot ion to dis

mi ss the i ndictmen ts in cases 03 CR

18117 and 03 CR 18119; and ( 3) t he t rial co ur t er re d in denying de fendant ’s mot ion t o w ithd ra w his gu ilty plea bec aus e he deni ed use of f

orce.1-06-0839

1 A.K.’s date o f b irth i s stat ed as both March 15, 1982, and March 18, 1982. We wil l use Mar ch 18 , 1 982 , fo r t he pu rp os e o f this d ecisio n. 2 In August 2003, defendan t was charged unde

r case num

bers 03 CR 18115, 03 CR 18116, 03 CR 18117 , 03 CR

18118 , and 03 C R 181 19 f or the s ex ual ass aul t of h i s step daug

hter, A .K. In Oc t o be r20 03 , de fen da nt filed a mo t io n t o dis miss t he ind ict men t s a s t ime ba rr ed by t he ap plic ab le statut e of l

im itations and that the applic ation of an y e xtended l im itations period consti

tut ed a vio lat io n o f ex pos t facto l aw s. The State res pon de d that d ef

en da nt was su bj ec t to the

ex tensi on of ti me f or th e statu te of l i m i tati on s a n d a n y de f ects i n th e i n di ctm en ts c oul d b e a men de d p rior to tria l . In D ecem

ber 2003 , the tri

al court den

i ed de f endan t’s m otion to dis m i ss. In M arch 2005, th e tri al court cond

ucted p l ea proc eedi

ngs on the cas es a gai nst def endan t. The foll owing f acts were stipulated to during those pro ceedings. In case n umber 03 CR 18115, defe ndan t pleaded gui

lty to one count of crim

in al sexual assaul t in wh ic h A .K. would testif

y tha t o n separate dates between Septembe

r 1, 2000, and Jul

y 5, 200 3, def en da nt r outi ne l y pene trate d the v

i cti m by i ns erti ng hi s p en i s i nto h er v ag i na by the us e of force or threat o f f

orce. A.K. would ask def endan t t o sto p and def

endan t would hold A .K. down and d o it anyway. D efenda nt gave numer ou s st at ement s t o t he po lice, his wife, an as sist ant State’s Attorne y (ASA ), and m edi cal pers onnel
. In case n umber 03 CR 18117, defe ndan t pleaded gui

lty to one count of aggravated crim in al sexual assaul t in wh ic h A .K. would testif

y tha t between Jan

uary 1992 an

d February

1995, defen dant, who was born October 6, 1965, would in struct A.K., who was born March 18, 1982, 1 to pla ce h er m outh on h i s penis. He

told h er to move h

er head u p an d down and to go fa ster.1-06-0839

3

T his w o uld las t be t we en 5 a nd 25 minu t es . Du r ing t he co ur se o f t he se inc ide nt s, de fen da nt wo uld t hre at en A. K. t hat he wo uld k ill her , he r mo t her , a nd himself if she d id no t co mply. Defend ant gave oral statements to t he polic e and m edi cal personnel

as wel l as a wri tt en conf essi on to an ASA. In case n

umber 03 CR 18118, defe ndan t pleaded gui

lty to two co unts of cri

mi nal sexual
assa ult in which A.K. wo uld t est ify t hat bet wee n July 6, 200 3, and J uly 20, 200 3, defend ant wo uld t ell her t o p lace he r mo ut h on his p enis. H e t old her t o mo ve her head up a nd do wn and t hat “you like it , yo u nee d t o s uck it. ” A. K. w ou ld cr y and as k de fendant t o s t op , bu t defend ant wo uld t hr ea t en t o kill he rif she did no t co mply. De fen da nt wo uld fur t he rpla ce a c o nd o m o n his pe nis a nd inse rt his p en is int o A. K. ’s va gin a, us ing his w eig ht t o ho ld h er do wn . A. K. wo uld repeatedly

ask def endan t t o sto p, that he was hurtin g her. Def

endan t would not comply

with h er pleas . T hese act s ro ut inely occu rr ed o n sep ar at e da t es a gainst A.K’s will with for ce a nd t he threa t of f orce . De f en da nt provi de d a

wri tten sta tem en t to an A SA ad m i tti ng to hi s p arti ci pa ti on in those events an

d to the force he us ed. In case n umber 03 CR 18119, defe ndan t pleaded gui

lty to one count of crim

in al sexual
assa ult in which A.K. wo uld t est ify t hat bet wee n July 25, 200 0, and Au gus t 31, 200 0, defend ant forced her to put her mout h on hi s peni s and perform oral sex on hi m. Thi s was done by the use of f orce an d thre aten i ng th e i m m i nent us e of

f orce to A.K. wi

thout he r cons en t or perm i ssi on. Defend ant pr ovid ed a wr itt en st at ement admit t ing t o c ommitt ing t hese act s wit h A.K. Defendan t also pleaded guil

ty to violating an order o f prote ction in case num ber 03 MC 10802 . The

State m oved to nol pros case 0 3 CR

18116
.1-06-0839

4

The trial court found that there was a f actual b asi s to suppo rt defendan t’s ple as and that defend ant volu nt ar ily

and int elligently ent er ed his p leas o f guilty. Defend ant made t he fo llowing stat ement in al

locut ion, “I’m sorr y, I didn’t kill anyb ody and I d id not for ce her, oka y, I didn’t force her, God is

with m e, he i s wi th me, b ut t hi s i s ridi

cul ous, it reall

y i s.” The court t hen sentence d defen

dant to t he f

oll owing terms: 15 y

ears f or case 03 CR 18115; 24 y ears f or case 03 CR 18117; 15 y

ears f or co unt I and 9 y

ears f or co unt II in

case 03 CR 18118;and 15 y ears f or 03 CR 18119. The sen

tences f or all cases were to run concurrently , except the two co unts i

n case 03 CR 18 11 8, wh ich we r e t o run co nse cu t ive t o ea ch o t he r . De fen da nt wa s a lso se nt en ce d t o six
m onth s i n th e C ook C oun

try De pa rtm en t of Corr ec ti ons f or hi s v i ol ati on of the orde r of pro tec tion. The o rder of pro tec tion was e xtended by the part ies f or two years upo n defendant’s releas e f rom th e pen i tentiary . In April 2006, defendant filed a postjudgment m ot ion to clarif

y sen tences, dismi

ss, withdraw gui

lty ple as and other relie f. A n am ended m ot ion was f

il ed i n Jun e 2005. In Jul

y 2005, defend ant fil

ed his se co nd amend ed p os t judg ment mo t ion. Defend ant asse rt ed t hat he sho uld be allowe d t o w ithd ra w his gu ilty plea t o s ome c har ges and t he co nvictio ns vac at ed be cau se t he pr os ecu t ion wa s bar re d by t he st at ut e o f li mitat ions. Defend ant also ar gue d t hat he sho uld be allowe d t o w ithd ra w all of his gu ilty pleas be cau se t hey wer e bas ed u po n false st at ement s by the pr os ecu t or use d t o inflame t he co ur t . D efenda nt furt her co nt ende d t hat dur ing t he co ur se o f the plea p ro cee dings, he affirmat ively denied t hat he co mmi t t ed t hese offense s by the use of fo rc e and he should b e permi

tt ed to withdraw hi s pleas an d the co nvi

ctions should be v

acated. In August 2005, the Stat e fi

le d its response

and def endan t later fi le d a reply

. In Feb ruary 2006, the trial1-06-0839

2 Th e c ur re nt o ffens e fo r t his s ame co ndu ct wo uld be p re da t o ry c rimina l sex ua l ass au lt o f a chi ld (720 ILC S 5/12-14.1(a)(1) (West 2006)). Predato ry cri mi nal sexual assaul t o f a ch il d, li ke its predeces sor, do es not require the use of force or the threat o f f

orce when the accus ed i s over 17 y ears of a ge an d the vi cti m i s un der 13
. 5 co ur t ent er ed a wr itt en o rd er dispo sing o f defend ant ’s po st judg ment mo t ion. In t he o rd er , t he t rial co ur t fou nd t hat defend ant ’s claims re lating t o t he exp irat ion o f the st at ut e o f li mitat ions
werewai v ed wh en de f en da n t pl ed gui l ty . Th e c our t also f oun d th at th e pros ecutor ’s

sta tem en ts weren ot m

i sl eadi n g a n d th e iss ue wa s wi th out m eri t. F i n al l y , the c our

t f oun d th at th e S tate of f ere d suf f i ci en t ev i denc e that actsag ai

ns t A. K . we re d one by the us e of f orce or th e th rea t of f orce. De f endan t nev er i ndi cated th at he did not thre aten

the u se of

f orce. Thi s appeal

followed. De f en da nt’ s f i rs t cl ai m on a ppe al i s th at the tri al cou rt er red i n e nte ri ng a c onv i cti on f or aggravated cri

mi nal sexual assaul t in case num

ber 03 CR 18117 b ecause the State fai le d to alle ge in the in dictment that an act of sex ual penetration was com

mi tt ed by the use of f

orce or the threat of f orce. However, the Stat e di d not need to pr esent any evi dence of the use of f

orce or the threat of f orce because those were not ele me nts of the statute in ef

fect at the tim

e the off ense was comm itted. The in

dictment f

or co unt I in

case num ber 03 CR 18117 al

le ged aggravated cri

mi nal
sexu al assa ult bet wee n Janu ar y 1992 and Fe bru ar y 1995 , p ur sua nt t o s ect ion 1 2- 14( b)( 1) of t he Cri m i na l Code of 1961 ( Cri

m i na l Code) (7 20 IL CS 5/1 2-14(b)(1) (W est 199 4)). 2 Section 12- 14(b)(1) provided: “(b) The accused com

mi ts aggravated crim

in al sexual1-06-0839

6 as sa ult if: (1 ) t he ac cus ed w as 1 7 year s o f age o r o ver and
comm its an act of sexual

penetration wi

th a vi ctim who was under 13 ye ars of age wh

en the act was com

mi tt ed[.]” 720 ILCS 5/12- 14(b )(1) (W

est 199 4). In t he st ipulat ed fac t s at defend ant ’s plea hear ing, t he pr os ecu t or st at ed t hat defend ant was born October 6, 1965, maki ng hi m ol der than 17 at the tim

e of the off

ense, an d A.K. was bo rn Ma r ch 18 , 19 82 , mak ing he run de r13 at t he t ime o f t he o ffen se . T he st ipu lat ed fac t s in t his
ca se we r e t ha t de fen da nt ha d A
. K. pe r fo rm o r al s ex o n him. T ho se fac t s a r e s uffic ien t t o fo rm a factual basis f or defendan

t’s ple a. The State establi shed proof of al l e le me nts for aggravated
cr iminal s ex ua l as sa ult fr o m Ja nu ar y 19 92 t o Fe br ua ry 19 95
. Sin ce we may a ffirm t he cir cu it court on any

basis supported by the record (see Pe o ple v. Din elli , 217 Ill . 2d 387, 403 (2005)), we fi nd that defen

dant’s argum

ent that the St ate was required to all ege the use of f

orce or the threat of f orc e is wi th out m eri t. Nex t, def endan t argues that the pleas i n c ase num bers 03 CR 1 8117 a

nd 0 3 CR 18119are “fata lly defec t ive” bec aus e t he indict ments ar e bar re d by t he st at ut e o f li mitat ions a nd t he in dictments f

ai le d to set forth a basis f

or an extended l

im itations period. The State responds that t his is su e is wa ive d b y de fen da nt ’s gu ilt y ple a o r , in t he alt er na t ive , t he ind ict men t s w er e p r o pe rin regard to the requis ite statute o f l im itations . Defen

dant contends that the Stat e should be b arred f rom a rgui ng wai ver as a resp onse be caus e i t di d not m

ake th i s arg um en t bef ore the c i rcui t court in response to defenda

nt’s postjudgm

ent motion. Def

endan t’s contention i s counter to Ill in ois l aw1-06-0839

7

because “an appelle e m

ay rais e any argumen ts in support o f the ci

rcuit court's judgm

ent, even wh er e t he y we r e n o t r ais ed be fo r e t he cir cu it co ur t , pr o vid ed t he y hav e a su fficie nt fac t ua l ba sis bef ore t he ci rcuit court. ” People v . Thomas , 36 4 I ll. Ap p. 3d 91 , 98 ( 20 06 )
. Ad di t io na lly, de fen da nt as se rt s t ha t t he cir cu it co ur t ’s find ing t ha t t he se cla ims w er e w aiv ed wa s u nfa ir a ndin
er ro r be cau se it s ru ling was no t base d o n t he ar gument s o f the par t ies. D efenda nt cite s no authority f

or t hi s position and theref ore, it is wai

ved un der Supreme Court Rule 341(h )(7). See 210 Il l . 2d R. 3 41(h

)(7). It i s w el l es tab l i sh ed tha t a vol un tary gui l ty plea wai ve s a l l non j urisd i cti ona l err ors or i rregul ari tie s, i nc l udi ng c onsti tution al errors. Pe o ple v. T o wn se ll , 209 Il l . 2d 543 , 545 (2 004). “[A] gui lty ple a represents a b

reak in the chai n of ev ents whi ch h as preceded i

t in the c rim in al proce ss . W

h en a cri m i n al de f en da n t h as sol em n l y ad m i tted i n ope n cou rt th at h e is i n f act gui l ty of th e of f ense wi th wh i ch h e is ch arge d, h

e m ay n ot th ereaf

ter rai se i n de pen den t cl ai m s rel ati n g to the depriv

ation of cons

titutional righ ts that o ccurred prior to t he en try of the gui

lty ple a. He ma

y only at t ack t he vo lunt ar y and inte lli gent char act er of t he gu ilty plea by sho wing t hat t he ad vice he
re ceived fro m cou nsel wa s no t wit hin the s t anda rd s set for t h in McMa nn . ” To llett v. H ende rso n, 411 U.S. 258, 267, 36 L. Ed. 2d 235, 243, 93 S . Ct. 1602, 1608 (1973), citin g McMa nn v. Ri ch ardson, 3 97 U .S . 7 59, 771 , 2 5 L. Ed . 2 d 76 3, 773 , 9 0 S . C t . 1 441 , 1 449 (1 970 ) ( defend ant mus t sho w t ha t ad vic e w as no t “w it hin t he r an ge o f co mpe t en ce de man de d o f at t o rne ys in cri m i na l cas es” ). W ai ve r as i de , de f

en da nt’ s cha l l en geto the i nd i ctm en ts a s b ei ng sta tutori l y ba rre d f ai l s on the merits.1-06-0839

8

In c ase num ber 03 CR

18119 , def

endan t pl ed gu i l ty to coun

t I for cr i m i na l sex ual ass aul t. The am ended i ndictmen t stat ed that the offen

se occurred between Jul

y 25, 2000, an

d August 31, 2000. Th e i ndi ctmen t was f i l ed on Au gust 22 , 2003. Under section 3-5(b) of the Cri mi nal Code, the stat ute of li

mi tations i s three y

ears. 720 ILCS 5/3-5(b) (West 2000). The State charged defen dant wi th a contin

uous course of conduct from Jul y 25, 2000, to August 31, 2000, and the offe nse was not comple

te until the last act was accompl is hed. See People v . McDade , 34 5 I ll. A pp . 3d 91 2, 91 5 ( 20 04 )
. Sin ce t he las t da t e in t he co ur se o f co nduc t was Augu st 31, 200 0, and t he indict ment w as filed o n Augu st 22, 200 3, t he statut e of l

im itations had n ot la psed and the i

ndictmen t for case 03 CR 18119 was n ot barred. In c ase number 03 C R 18 117 , d efenda nt co nt ends t hat t he indict ment is ba rr ed by t he sta tute of l i m i tations be ca us e the Sta

te f ai l ed to al l eg e suf f i ci en t f ac ts to exte

nd the sta tute of li mi tations and that any

extensi on would vi

olate ex pos t facto l aw s. De f en da n t pl ed gui l ty to cou nt I f or aggra va ted cri m i na l sexu al as sa ul t i n c as e 0 3 C R 1 811 7. Th

at i nd i ctm en t wa s f i l ed on Au gust 19 , 2003, a

nd a l l eged that the off en se occ urred b etween Jan

uary 1992 a nd F ebruary

1995. The i ndi ctmen t stated tha

t A.K . wasund

er 13 y ears of a ge wh en the of f en se was c omm

i tted. At the tim

e of the off

ense, sec tion 3-6(c) of the Cri

mi nal Code provided: “A prosecution for any

off ense i nvol vi ng sex ual conduct or sexual pene t ra t ion, as d efined in Se ct ion 1 2- 12 o f this Co de, wher e t he vi cti m an d de f en da nt a re f am i l y mem be rs , as de f i ne d i n S ec ti on 12- 12 o f this Co de, may be co mmenced w ithin o ne year of t he victim attaini

ng the age of 18 years.” 720 ILCS 5/ 3-6(c) (West1-06-0839

9 1994)
. Sin ce A.K . was under 18 at the tim e of the off

ense, the State had until March 18, 2001 ( A. K. ’s nine t ee nt h bir t hd ay) , t o co mmenc e d efe nd an t ’s pr o se cu t io n. Ho we ve r , de fen da nt is sub j ect to any

ex tens i ons th

at were enacted pri or to A.K.’ s n i neteen th b i rthda y . Under Peo ple v. A nd ers on , 53 Il

l . 2d 437 , 440-4 1 (197 3), the Illi noi s Suprem

e Court f ound th at a statutory
am endm ent extendi

ng a statute o f l

im itations was i ntended to apply

to all c ases, exc ept where a defen dant had b ecome en

titled to disc

harge prior t o t he ef

fecti ve date. “[A] l

egi slative body c an ex ten d th e p eri od of

l i m i tati on s a s to cri

m i n al of f ense s w h i ch occ ur re d p rior to th

e e f f ecti v e date of th e ch an ge wi th out v i ol ati n g th e c on sti tuti on al prohi b i ti on ag ai n st ex pos t facto la

ws, so long as t he ext ende d pe rio d do es no t app ly to any case in which the acc use d has acq uire d, as o f the eff ective date of the chan

ge, a righ t t o acquittal through the runn in g of the origi

nal statut e.” A nd ers on , 5 3 I ll. 2d a t 440 . T his long- st anding r ule is co nsist ent wit h t he de cision in St og ner v. Ca lifo rnia , 5 39 U .S . 6 07, 632 , 1 56 L . E d. 2d 5 44, 565 , 1 23 S . C t . 2 446 , 2 461 (2 003 ), wher e t he Supreme C ourt declared a Cal if ornia statut e that all

owed for the prosecution of tim e-barred cases t o be an ex pos t facto violation, but “to hold that such a law i s ex pos t facto do es no t pr event t he Stat e from

extendi ng tim e lim its f or t he prosecution of

future off

enses , or for pro secutions not yet tim e barred.” In P ublic Act 91– 475 , t he I lli nois leg islatu re ext ende d t he st at ut e o f li mitat ions fo r t he prosecution of cri

mi nal sexual assaul t and aggravated cri

mi nal sexual assaul t t o be comm

enced wi thi n 10 years of the vi cti

m ’seighte en

th b i rthda y . Pub . Act 91–475 , ef

f . Jan uary 1, 2000
. Con trar y to de f en da nt’ s a ss erti

on, Publi c A

ct 9 1–4 75 e

xte nd ed the sta tute of li m i tati ons f or1-06-0839

10

offend er s who wer e family members, as w ell as o ffender s who wer e no t . At t hat t ime, de fendant had no t yet a cqu ired “a right t o a cqu itt al thr ou gh t he r unning o f the or iginal sta t ut e, ” and th eref ore , he w as

su b j ect to the a

men dm en t. Se cti on 3- 6( i) p rov

i de d, i n re l ev an t pa rt: “When t he vict im i

s und er 18 yea rs o f age a t t he t ime of t he of f ense an d the of f en der i s a f am i l y mem be r as de f i ne d i n S ec ti on 12-12, a prosecut ion f

or crim in al sexual assaul t, aggravated crim in al sexual assaul t, predat ory cri

mi nal sexual assaul t o f a ch il d, or aggravated crim

in al sexual abuse m ay be com me nced wi thin 10 ye ars of the vi

ctim attaini ng the age of

18 ye ars.” 720 ILCS 5/ 3- 6(i ) (We st 2000 ). As a res ul t of thi s en actm en t, the State h

ad un til Marc h 20 10 to prosec

ute def endan t. However, the legi

slature subsequen

tly extended the statute of li mi tations to 20 years i

n Publ ic Act 93– 356 . Pu b. A ct 9 3—3 56, ef

f . Ju l y 24, 200 3. A

gai n, de f en da nt i s s ub j ec t to this exte

ns i on because the statut e of l

im itations had n ot expi red when the extensi

on becam e eff ective. Se cti on 3- 6( j ) s tate s, i n re l ev an t pa rt: “When t he vict im i

s und er 18 yea rs o f age a t t he t ime of t he off ense, a prosecution f

or crim in al sexual assaul t, aggravated crim in al sexual assaul t, predat ory cri

mi nal sexual assaul t o f a ch il d,
o r a gg ra vat ed cr iminal se xua l abu se o r a pr o se cu t io n fo r fa ilur e o f a person who i s requi

red to report an al

le ged or suspected
co mmi ssio n of a ny of t hese offense s und er t he Abus ed a nd1-06-0839

11 Negl ected C hi l d Rep ortin

g A ct may

be com menced w

i thi n 20 years aft er t he ch ild v ict im at t ain s 1 8 ye ar s o f ag e. ” 7 20 I LC S 5 /3
- 6( j) (We st Supp . 2003)
. A ddi ti ona l l y , de f en da nt ass erts tha t the i nd i ctm en t f ai l ed to prop erl

y set f orth the basis f or an ex tended l i m i tations peri od. We

di sag ree. “Where an indict ment o n its fac e sho ws t hat an o ffense wa s no t co mmi t t ed w ithin t he app licable li

mitat ion p er iod , it beco mes an element of t he St at e's c ase t o a llege and pr ove t he existence of f

acts which i

nvoke an exception to the li

mi tation period.” Pe o ple v. Mo rr is , 13 5 I ll. 2d 5 40, 546 (1 990 ). “As wit h t he o t her element s which t he St at e must pr ove , su ch as t he element s o f the offense wit h which a d efenda nt is being cha rg ed, ‘[t ]he gr ou nds u po n which t he Pe o ple se ek t o wr es t fr o m a d efe nd an t t he pr o t ec t io n o f se ct io n 3
- 5 o f t he Cr iminal C o de [ ( I ll. Rev. St at .1 987 , c h. 3 8, par . 3 -5 (no w 72 0 I LCS 5/ 3- 5 ( West 200 6) )) ] sho uld be s t at ed in t he in form ation wi th suff ic ie nt specifi ci ty to enabl

e hi m to defen

d agai nst them .’ ” Mo rr is , 135 Ill . 2d at 546, quo ting Pe o ple v. St r ait , 7 2 I ll. 2d 5 03, 506 (1 978 ). “Beca use t he pu rp os e o f req uiring spe cificity is to pr ovid e no t ice t o t he de fendant of p re cisely what t he St at e will att empt t o p ro ve (a nd t her efo re t o a llow t he de fendant an o ppo rt unit y to pr epa re a de fense) , w e co nclude t hat t he State m us t not on

l y set f orth ci rcu m sta nc eswh i ch , i n a nd of the m se l ve s, woul d pr ovi dea b as i s f

or t olling a limi

t at ion p er iod , bu t t he St at e must make c lear t hat t hos e circ umst ance s ar e in fact t he basis upon whi

ch the State seeks to t oll

the li mi tation period.” Mo rr is , 135 Il l . 2d at 54 7. We h old that the in

dictment f

or co unt I stated with specifi ci ty the ci rcumstances sur ro unding t he cha rg e as well as a ba sis for ext ending t he limi t at ions p er iod . T he indict ment1-06-0839

12

i nd i ca ted de f en da nt was17 y

ea rs of ag e or ol der wh en he com m i tted a n a ct of sexu al pene trati on upon A.K., who was un

der 13 yea

rs of age at the tim

e the act of sexua

l pe netration was
com m i tted. Th e i

nd i ctm en t sta ted tha t thi s act w asi

n v i ol ati on of se cti on 1 2-1 4(b)(1 ) an

d s ec ti on 3- 6( j). Se ct io n 1 2- 14 ( b) ( 1) , as pr ev io us ly dis cu ss ed , r efe r s t o ag gr av at ed cr iminal s ex ua l as sa ult where the off

ender i s 17 y

ears of age or older an

d victim is under 13 (720 ILCS 5/12-14(b)(1) (Wes t 199 4)) , wh

ere asse cti

on 3 -6( j ) wa s th e statute i n e f f ec t at the ti

me of the i nd i ctm en t f or extended l

im itations where the v

ictim was under 18 y

ears of age (720 ILCS 5/3-6(j ) (West Supp. 2003)). Defenda

nt was put on notice to defend aga in st both the charge and the b asi s f or an ex tended s tatute of l

i m i tations. Accordi

ngl y , the i ndi ctmen t was proper. Last, defen

dant argues that the trial

court erred in

refusi ng to withdraw his guilty

ple as because he nev

er stipulated to the use of force o r threat of force and that t he Stat e made f alse repre sen tations ab out def

endan t’s c onf ess i on. The State m

ai ntai ns that de f endan t’s pl eas were mad e v o lunt ar ily an d k no win gl y.

“ Le av e to w i th dr aw a p l ea of gui l ty i s n ot gran ted as a m atte r of ri gh t, b ut a s req ui re d to correct a m

anifes t injustice un

der the facts i

nvol ved. Gene

rall y, the deci

sion whether to all

ow a defend ant t o w ithd ra w a g uilty plea u nder Rule 6 04( d) [( 188 Ill. 2d R. 604 (d )) ] is left t o t he discr et ion o f the t rial co ur t . I n co nsider ing suc h a mot ion, t he co ur t shall evaluat e whe t her t he guilt y plea wa s ent er ed t hro ugh a misappr ehens ion o f the fact s o r o f the law, or if ther e is do ubt of th e g ui l t of th e accus ed

an d th e en dsof j usti ce wou l d b ette r b e s er v ed b y su b m i tti n g th e c as e to a trial .” People v . Pull

en , 19 2 Il l . 2d 36, 39- 40 (200 0). W e re vi ew the trial cou rt’ s dec i si on f or an abuse of d i scre tion
. Pull en , 192 Ill . 2d at 40.1-06-0839

13

De f en da nt b as eshi

s a ss erti on th at he di d n

ot sti pul ateto the us e of f orce or th e th rea t of force on his statemen

t t o t he trial

court . When

the court asked def

endan t if he would li

ke say
an y thi ng be f ore h e w assente

nc ed , de f en da nt s ai d, “ I’ m sor ry, I di dn ’t k

i l l an y bod y an d I d i d n ot fo r ce he r , o ka y, I did n’t fo r ce he r , Go d is wit h me , he is w it h me , bu t t his is r idic ulo us , it r ea lly is.” H ow ever , w hen t he pr os ecu t or pr ese nt ed a fact ual bas is, includ ing t he us e o f forc e o r t he threat of force, for each co unt t o which def endant pled guil

ty, defendant stipulated t o t hose facts. T he t r ial c o ur t st at ed as fo llo ws wh en it co nsid er ed t his c laim:

“As t o t he cha rg es D efenda nt plead ed g uilty t o in which “ by the use of force or

threat of force ” is pa rt of t he co rp us d elicti, t he pr es enc e o f ei

ther o f t he se alt er na t ive s is su fficie nt t o sa t isfy t his el em ent of the off

ense. De f en da n t n ev er i n di ca ted th at h e d i dn ’t threaten the

us e of f orc e. The f

actual b as i s to su

pp ort th e p l ea s a s rec i

ted b y th e S tate and s t ipulat ed t o by De fendant t hro ugh his a t t or ney follow ing De fen da nt ’s kn o win g p lea s o f gu ilt y as t o ea ch co un t , sp elle d o ut in grap hic terms each act of crimi nal sexual assault. The St ate ’s proffe r of the evi

dence rel ating to the use of f

orce or the threat of force i n e ach cri m i na l act, as adm i tted to by Def endan t, was m ore t ha n su fficie nt t o su pp o rt t he va r io us ple as o f gu ilt y.” ( E mph as is in origi na l .) We agree wi

th the trial

court . Defen

dant’s sel f-serv in g statement did not deny

the threat1-06-0839

14

of fo rc e. The fact ual bas is pre sent ed by t he St at e wa s mor e t han su ffi cient t o s at isfy the requirem ent of “us e of f

orce or threat o f f

orce.” Defenda

nt entered a knowi

ng an d volun tary plea on each cou n t an d sti pul ate d to th

e f acts s uppor ti n g th e c oun ts. The tr i al cou rt di d n ot ab us e i ts discretion i

n deny in g defendant’s m

ot ion to withdraw his guilty pl ea on this basis. We also find tha t defend ant ’s co nt ent ion t hat t he t rial co ur t sho uld have per mitt ed t he withdrawal

of his guilty

ple as beca

use the State made f

al se statemen

ts on the record is wi

thout suppor t. Wi

th regar d to this cl

aim , t he trial court made the foll owing f in din gs: “Th e as si stan t [S]tate’s [A]ttorne

y who prese

nted the C ourt wi th a f ac tual basis to s upp ort th e p l ea s of

gui l ty ne ve r s tate d on t he r ec o r d t ha t De fen da nt ac t ua lly wr o t e o ut t he co nfe ss io n in h is
ow n handw rit ing. T he r epr ese nt at ions t o t he Co ur t by the prosecuto r were essen

tial ly that Defen

dant signed a wri

tt en co nfessio n co nsist ent wit h t he fact s sp re ad o f rec or d. Mo re ove r, by mut ual co nsent and r equ est of t he pa rt ies t he Co ur t viewed and read Defe ndan t’s written statemen

t during the course of a pl ea discu ssio n co nfere nce initiat ed by De fendant and he ld wit h t he parties[’] attor ney

s pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 402(d) [177 Ill . 2d R. 402(d)]. The Court fi nds that i t has not been [m

is le d] about the nat ure o f Defendant’s admissi ons and Defendant ’s alle gation of f

al se statemen

t by the prosecutor is wh

oll y w ithout
meri t.”1-06-0839

15

Ag ai n, w e f i nd n o abu se of

di scre tion by the tri al court. The

record d oes n ot support de fen da nt ’s as se rt io n be ca us e t he pr o se cu t o rne ve rind ica t ed t ha t de fen da nt pe r so na lly wr o t e h is conf ess i on. Ra

ther, the prose cutor stated th at a wri tten con f ess i on wa s prov

i ded to an ASA
. De f en da n t cl ai m s to th e c on

tra ry are wi th out m eri t. Fo rt he fo r eg o ing r ea so ns , we af fir m t he de cis io n o f t he cir cu it co ur t o f Co o k C o un t y. Af f i rmed. CA HILL and R. GO RDON , JJ., c oncu r.