Pursuant to negotiations with the State, defendant entered an open plea of guilty for concurrent terms to the two counts of unlawful possession of a controlled substance, and the State dismissed the remaining count. He filed a motion to reduce sentence, which was denied after a hearing. The State contends that this court does not have jurisdiction to vacate the mandatory supervised release term as defendant did not file a motion to withdraw his pleas of guilty. Defendant stands convicted of two Class 4 felonies on which the maximum extended term of six years' imprisonment was imposed.
Defendant is subject to a mandatory supervised release term of one year.
The mandatory supervised release relates to a term of imprisonment by statutory requirement without regard to whether the period is expressly attached by the sentencing court to the term of imprisonment. 36 Ill. App. The mandatory supervised release term is imposed as though written into the term of imprisonment by the sentencing court, demonstrating that the State has no right to offer the withholding of such period as a part of the plea negotiations and that the court has no power to withhold such period in imposing sentence. In the event of a revocation of mandatory supervised release, defendant could be incarcerated for periods which exceed the maximum determinate term imposed by the sentencing court. Recently, our supreme court has held that when a defendant alleges that the trial court violated statutory authority in imposing sentence, the defendant need not file a motion to withdraw the guilty plea.