Court Opinion

ID: 9727986
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:54:34.191153+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:44.813258
License: Public Domain

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON DENIAL OF REHEARING. Mr. JUSTICE KARNS delivered the opinion of the court:  Several points have been raised in defendant’s petition for rehearing which we believe warrant modification of our original opinion. Defendant originally contended that his plea was not voluntarily and intelligently entered because he was misinformed of the minimum term of solicitation to commit murder and that, therefore, the 4- to 8-year sentence could not stand. He apparently did not argue, nor did we find, that the trial court’s admonishments under Supreme Court Rule 402 were otherwise deficient. He also argued that he was sentenced on the offense of solicitation and consequently argued that the misinformation resulted in prejudice to defendant. In his petition for rehearing, defendant has relinquished his argument that the guilty plea was not intelligently and understandingly entered, thereby conceding that there is no basis for the withdrawal of the plea. He does argue that he is entitled to a new sentencing hearing. We agree. It is clear that the trial court misinformed defendant of the minimum sentence for solicitation to commit murder; however, it is not clear whether defendant was sentenced for solicitation or for conspiracy. Had defendant been sentenced for solicitation as originally asserted by defendant, the trial court, we admit, imposed what it erroneously believed was a minimum mandatory term. Therefore, under the reasoning of Moore and Athey, the case must be remanded for resentencing. If defendant had been sentenced for conspiracy and not solicitation, it is likewise clear that the 4- to 8-year sentence cannot stand. The minimum sentence for conspiracy, a Class 2 felony, must not exceed one-third of the maximum term as set by the court. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 38, par. 1005—8—1(c)(3).) While defendant was properly admonished of the sentencing possibilities for a Class 2 felony, he was not sentenced within the statutory limitations. We therefore reverse and remand this case to the trial court with instructions to state upon which offense defendant was sentenced and to conduct a new sentencing hearing consistent with this supplemental opinion. Reversed and remanded. KUNCE, J., concurs.