Opinion ID: 2094835
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Waltrip's Guilty Plea

Text: Before proceeding to the merits of these cases, we must dispose of a threshold issue raised by the State in its response to Waltrip's appeal. The State argues that Waltrip's guilty plea bars him from challenging his sentence, and his only recourse is to seek to withdraw his plea on the grounds that he was sentenced under a purportedly unconstitutional statute. The State relies upon People v. Evans, 174 Ill.2d 320, 220 Ill.Dec. 332, 673 N.E.2d 244 (1996), and its progeny, arguing that a negotiated guilty plea is subject to contract principles that preclude Waltrip from challenging the parameters of his sentence. Waltrip answers that the State did not raise this issue before the appellate court and, consequently, it is waived. Waiver aside, Waltrip argues that his argument is distinguishable from the sentencing arguments raised in Evans and the other cases cited by the State. Waltrip states that because he attacks his sentence as unconstitutional, not as excessive, Evans does not bar this claim. We agree with Waltrip. Waltrip is not raising a garden-variety excessive-sentence issue. Instead, Waltrip, like Guevara, contends that the 15-year sentence enhancement for home invasion with a firearm violates the constitutional guarantee of proportionate penalties. If this provision violates the proportionate penalties clause, then it is void ab initio. See People v. Scales, 307 Ill.App.3d 356, 360-61, 240 Ill.Dec. 800, 718 N.E.2d 281 (1999) (agreeing with State that conviction based on a statute held to violate the proportionate penalties clause in People v. Lombardi, 184 Ill.2d 462, 235 Ill.Dec. 478, 705 N.E.2d 91 (1998), was void ab initio ). A defendant may argue that a criminal statute is unconstitutional, and void ab initio, at any time. People v. Wright, 194 Ill.2d 1, 23-24, 251 Ill.Dec. 469, 740 N.E.2d 755 (2000); People v. Christy, 139 Ill.2d 172, 176, 151 Ill.Dec. 315, 564 N.E.2d 770 (1990). Further, a guilty plea does not preclude a defendant from arguing on appeal that he was sentenced under a statute that was facially unconstitutional and void ab intitio. People v. Jackson, 199 Ill.2d 286, 300-01, 263 Ill.Dec. 819, 769 N.E.2d 21 (2002). Because Waltrip argues that he was sentenced under a statute that was unconstitutional and void ab initio, he may raise this claim without moving to withdraw his guilty plea.