Court Opinion

ID: 9889790
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-11 17:06:38.811182+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:00.027250
License: Public Domain

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,                            )   Appeal from the
                                                                 )   Circuit Court of
           Plaintiff-Appellee,                                   )   Cook County.
                                                                 )
     v.                                                          )   No. 17 CR 10802
                                                                 )
 ADAM HIBBLER,                                                   )
                                                                 )   Honorable
           Defendant-Appellant.                                  )   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

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.

                                                  -2-
No. 1-22-1159

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

                                                -3-
No. 1-22-1159

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

                                                   -4-
No. 1-22-1159

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.

                                                -5-