Court Opinion

ID: 9719786
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:03:42.389044+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:09.957859
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE GEORGE J. MORAN, dissenting: I do not believe that Rule 604(d) applies to a defendant who merely wishes to question the excessiveness of his sentence. In my opinion, Rule 604(d) was promulgated in response to the increasing number of appeals from guilty pleas and was designed to compel a defendant to initiate his objections to Rule 402 admonitions in the trial court where errors can be quickly cured. This rationale is of course not applicable to an allegedly excessive sentence. Where, as in this case, a defendant knows he is guilty, admits he is guilty, enters a plea of guilty and receives what he considers an excessive sentence, I regard it illogical that he must then file a motion to vacate that plea. If he files a motion to vacate the plea and it is subsequently allowed, must he then stand trial even though he knows and admits he is guilty? If the trial judge sets aside his plea and he again pleads guilty, must he file another motion to withdraw‘-his plea if he receives another excessive sentence? If the sentence which is the only ground for error is technically correct although disproportionate to the offense, defendant could not possibly be successful in his motion to withdraw his plea and vacate judgment for such is not a recognized ground for reversal. If the trial court explicitly complies with all aspects of Rule 402 and no such procedural deficiencies exist, the majority’s interpretation requires an act not legally authorized when no grounds exist for the withdrawal of the plea. I further disagree with the majority’s concept of consideration given by defendant for the State’s dismissal of certain other charges. It is true that defendant agrees to plead guilty for these dismissals, but he does not agree to “accept whatever punishment the court might see fit to impose.” (Emphasis added.) Rather, he agrees to accept a rational form of punishment reasonably related to the seriousness of the crime he has admittedly committed and to his rehabilitative potential. This expectation is mandated by article I, section 11, of the 1970 Constitution of Illinois. Under the rationale of the majority, the State is shortchanged in the plea negotiation process when a defendant successfully challenges a sentence imposed on a plea of guilty. I believe such a position is particularly misplaced in a case such as this where there existed no agreement for the recommendation of a sentence to the court. While a prosecutor must of necessity occupy in part the position of an adversary, his ultimate duty is to seek justice on behalf of the people. Yet justice is not served when an excessive sentence is given. Thus, I fail to see how our consideration of an allegedly excessive sentence deprives the prosecution of its bargain. Certainly the pursuit of justice would not abide a disproportionate sentence. I dissent.