2023 IL App (1st) 221159-U

No. 1-22-1159 

Order filed October 11, 2023

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. 

ADAM HIBBLER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Appeal from the

Circuit Court of

Cook County. 

No. 17 CR 10802

Honorable 

Carl B. Boyd, 

Judge, presiding.

JUSTICE LAMPKIN delivered the judgment of the court.

 Presiding Justice Rochford and Justice Hoffman concurred in the judgment. 

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The trial court is ordered to correct defendant’s mittimus to accurately reflect that 

defendant was convicted of one count of attempt armed robbery, a Class 1 offense, 

and that he received an extended term sentence of 18 years in prison.

¶ 2 On August 24, 2023, in an order filed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 23, we reversed the 

trial court’s dismissal of defendant Adam Hibbler’s second-stage petition for postconviction relief 

because postconviction counsel (counsel) failed to provide reasonable assistance and remanded 
No. 1-22-1159 

- 2 - 

for further second-stage proceedings. This holding was based in part on a Rule 651(c) certificate 

which stated, “I have not made amendments to the petition filed pro se, they are necessary for an 

adequate presentation of petitioner’s contentions (emphasis added).” At defendant’s request, we

also ordered the correction of defendant’s mittimus. 

¶ 3 On September 12, 2023, by way of a petition for rehearing, defendant alerted this Court to 

the existence of a subsequent Rule 651(c) certificate, filed the same day as the original but not 

contained in the record on appeal, which said, “I have not made amendments to the petition filed 

pro se, they are not necessary for an adequate presentation of petitioner’s contentions.” We allowed 

the record on appeal to be supplemented with that certificate. In his petition, defendant sought 

leave to file supplemental briefing or, alternatively, leave to withdraw his claim that he did not 

receive the reasonable assistance of counsel. We invited the State to file an answer, which it did 

on September 29, 2023. On October 10, 2023, we denied defendant’s petition for rehearing and 

withdrew our prior Rule 23 order. Having granted defendant’s request to withdraw his reasonable 

assistance claim, we now address the only remaining question of whether defendant’s mittimus 

should be corrected.

¶ 4 For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the trial court, but order the 

correction of defendant’s mittimus.

1

¶ 5 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 6 On June 20, 2019, defendant agreed to plead guilty to one count of attempt armed robbery, 

a Class 1 felony, in exchange for the dismissal of two counts of first degree murder. Prior to 

1 In adherence with the requirements of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 352(a) (eff. July 1, 2018), 

this appeal has been resolved without oral argument upon the entry of a separate written order.
No. 1-22-1159 

- 3 - 

accepting the plea, the trial court admonished defendant that the possible sentencing range was 4 

to 30 years due to his criminal history.

¶ 7 The State’s factual basis maintained that on June 1, 2017, Chicago Heights police officers 

responded to a shooting at 1902 Revere Street in Chicago Heights, Cook County, Illinois.

Defendant gave a statement that he and Hurst were armed with firearms and were attempting to 

meet a group of men to rob them of other firearms. During the attempted robbery, one of the 

intended victims shot both defendant and Hurst, who later died from his injuries. The trial court 

accepted defendant’s plea and sentenced him to an extended term of 18 years in prison.

Defendant’s mittimus correctly stated his sentence of 18 years, but incorrectly listed the offense 

as “murder/other forcible felony” and the applicable statute as 720 ILCS 5/9-1(A)(3).

¶ 8 On November 30, 2020, defendant filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to 725 

ILCS 5/122-1 et seq., which claimed that he pled guilty to attempt armed robbery, a Class 1 felony, 

in exchange for a sentence of 18 years, but that his mittimus incorrectly listed his offense as 

“murder/other forcible felony.” Defendant alleged that he was never admonished about extended 

term sentencing by trial counsel or the trial court, and as a result, he was unable to withdraw his 

guilty plea. He further claimed that trial counsel did not file any motions to suppress evidence, did 

not contact any witnesses, and did not try to dismiss his case. He finally claimed that he did not 

receive an indictment within 30 days of his arrest. 

¶ 9 The State agreed that defendant’s mittimus should be corrected to reflect that he pled guilty 

to attempt armed robbery. On July 22, 2022, the trial court dismissed defendant’s petition, but 

agreed to enter a modified mittimus. The updated mittimus, entered the same day, correctly stated 
No. 1-22-1159 

- 4 - 

that defendant received a sentence of 18 years, but incorrectly stated that defendant was convicted 

of “attempt armed robbery/armed w/fir” and listed the offense as a Class X felony.

¶ 10 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 11 The transcript of defendant’s plea is abundantly clear that he agreed to plead guilty to one 

count of attempt armed robbery rather than armed robbery. There can be no dispute that the first 

mittimus that stated defendant was convicted of murder was incorrect. Likewise, the subsequent 

mittimus entered July 22, 2022, remains incorrect. Defendant’s mittimus, as reflected in the 

transcript of his plea proceedings, should state that he was convicted of the Class 1 offense of 

attempt armed robbery, for which he received an extended-term sentence of 18 years. The State 

agrees that defendant’s mittimus should be corrected.

¶ 12 Supreme Court Rule 472 provides that the trial court retains jurisdiction to correct clerical 

errors in the written sentencing order or other part of the record resulting in a discrepancy between 

the record and the actual judgment of the court. Ill. S. Ct. R. 472(a)(4) (eff. Mar. 1, 2019). The 

issue of whether a mittimus should be corrected is a purely legal issue to which we apply a de novo 

standard of review. People v. Harris, 2012 IL App (1st) 092251, ¶ 34. Ordinarily, a defendant 

must file a motion in the trial court to allow the trial court the opportunity to correct the error. 

People v. Edwards, 2020 IL App (1st) 170843, ¶ 27. If a defendant does not raise a Rule 472 claim 

in the trial court, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction to hear it. Id. 

¶ 13 Here, although no motion was filed in the trial court raising this issue, the trial court was 

undeniably made aware of this problem by way of the claim in defendant’s postconviction petition

and attempted to correct the mistake, albeit unsuccessfully. In the interest of judicial economy, it 

would be superfluous to require counsel to file a motion to solve an issue that trial court endeavored 
No. 1-22-1159 

- 5 - 

to solve, and about which the parties agree. Moreover, Supreme Court Rule 615(b) empowers this 

Court to “reverse, affirm, or modify the judgment or order from which the appeal is taken.” Ill. S. 

Ct. R. 615(b)(1). 

¶ 14 Thus, defendant’s mittimus should be amended to reflect that he pled guilty to one count 

of attempt armed robbery, a Class 1 offense pursuant to 720 ILCS 5/8-4 and 720 ILCS 5/18-2, and 

that he received an extended sentence of 18 years in prison.

¶ 15 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 16 The trial court’s judgment dismissing defendant’s second-stage petition for postconviction 

relief is affirmed, but we order the correction of his mittimus.

¶ 17 Affirmed; mittimus corrected.