Opinion ID: 2018021
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Supplemental Opinion upon Denial of Petitions for Rehearing

Text: Defendant has filed a petition for rehearing in which it is contended that it does not appear from the record that he understood the consequences of his pleas of guilty to the charges of burglary and escape. He argues that because the record fails to show that he understood that parole terms of three years would be a direct consequence of his convictions of burglary and escape, it does not appear, as required by Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 23 L.Ed.2d 274, 89 S.Ct. 1709, that he pleaded guilty knowingly and voluntarily. The People have filed a petition urging that the opinion be modified to require prospective application only. The constitutional requirement for a valid plea of guilty is that it be intelligent and voluntary, and as we said in People v. Reeves, 50 Ill.2d 28, 29,  Boykin adds the requirement that if the guilty plea is to withstand appellate or post-conviction review `the record must affirmatively disclose that the defendant who pleads guilty enters his plea understandingly and voluntarily.' ( Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 747 footnote (4), 25 L.Ed.2d 747, 756, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 1468.)' The Committee Comments to Rule 402 state: Two major objectives of new Rule 402 are: (1) to insure compliance with the Boykin requirements; and (2) to give visibility to the plea agreement process and thus provide the reviewing court with a record containing an accurate and complete account of all relevant circumstances surrounding the guilty plea. 50 Ill.2d R. 402. In view of our holding here, failure to admonish a defendant concerning the mandatory period of parole is, of course, a factor to be considered in determining whether a plea of guilty was voluntarily and intelligently made. The record here shows the pleas to have been intelligent and voluntary. We consider next the question whether our holding that compliance with Rule 402(a)(2) requires that a defendant be admonished with respect to the mandatory period of parole pertaining to the sentence to be imposed should apply retroactively or prospectively. In People v. Ellis, 53 Ill.2d 390, 394, we considered whether a new pronouncement or standard for testing the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures was to apply retroactively or only prospectively, and set forth the criteria for deciding the question. Although the procedural change here effected involves no constitutional issue or standard, the same criteria are applicable. We hold that the requirement of the admonition concerning the period of mandatory parole applies prospectively to guilty pleas taken subsequent to May 19, 1975.