Court Opinion

ID: 9723567
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:20:44.192492+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:49.815559
License: Public Domain

CHIEF JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting: Unlike the majority, I am convinced that defendant was in no way prejudiced by counsel’s allegedly erroneous advice. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. In People v. Morreale, 412 Ill. 528 (1952), the defendant was indicted on June 17, 1950, and he entered a not-guilty plea several weeks later. On May 17, 1951, the case was called for trial. The defendant’s counsel, George Crane, could not be present that day, as he was trying another case. The defendant was instead represented by “a youthful associate of Crane,” who asked for a continuance until Crane could be present. Instead of a continuance, the assistant State’s Attorney suggested that the case be passed so that the parties could discuss a guilty plea. The trial court passed the case, and the two attorneys set out to find Crane. Morreale, 412 Ill. at 529-30. After finding Crane in another courtroom, the assistant State’s Attorney asked Crane if he was available to represent the defendant in the entry of a guilty plea. Crane responded that it was impossible. The assistant State’s Attorney suggested that Crane’s youthful associate could represent the defendant, assuring Crane that the State would not oppose probation and that the defendant “couldn’t get hurt.” Crane acquiesced and instructed his youthful associate to follow the assistant State’s Attorney’s lead. Accordingly, the youthful associate instructed the defendant to change his plea to guilty, assuring the defendant that he would get probation. When the defendant balked, the youthful associate returned him to Crane, who told him not to “ ‘worry about anything; plead guilty and you will get probation.’ ” Morreale, 412 Ill. at 530. The defendant returned to the courtroom with the youthful associate and entered a guilty plea. Before accepting the plea, the trial court “questioned [Morreale] as to whether such action was his wish and duly admonished him as to the consequences of entering such a plea.” Morreale, 412 Ill. at 530. Morreale answered in the affirmative, and the trial court accepted the plea. Two weeks later, the trial court sentenced the defendant to 5 to 10 years in prison. The defendant moved to withdraw his guilty plea, and the trial court denied the motion. Morreale, 412 Ill. at 531. In reversing, this court explained that “[tjhere are several circumstances, peculiar to the record before us in this cause, which lead us to believe that the ends of justice will be better served by permitting plaintiff in error to change his plea and submit the matter of his guilt to a jury.” (Emphasis added.) Morreale, 412 Ill. at 532. These circumstances included (1) the longevity of the defendant’s original not-guilty plea; (2) the “hurried consultations” between Crane, the assistant State’s Attorney, and the youthful associate, which “were accomplished during a recess of court by passing back and forth between two courtrooms”; (3) the initiation of plea discussions by the State, at a time when the defendant lacked representation by the actual counsel of his choice; (4) the assistant State’s Attorney’s representation that he would not oppose probation; and (5) the timing of the trial court’s admonitions, which “follow[ed] so closely on the heels of the haste, confusion and influence discussed above.” Morreale, 412 Ill. at 532-34. Ultimately, this court concluded, “[w]hen all the circumstances are considered, particularly the fact that the prosecutor was the moving party in suggesting that no harm would come to plaintiff in error if he pleaded guilty, it is difficult to say that his act was a knowing and studied attempt to throw himself on the mercy of the court in a hope for milder punishment.” (Emphasis added.) Morreale, 412 Ill. at 533. Compare those facts with the present case. Here, defendant was arrested on April 15, 1999, and formally charged by information on April 21, 1999. A public defender was appointed, and a preliminary hearing was held on April 29, 1999. Three weeks later, on May 19, 1999, defendant entered a fully negotiated guilty plea to the aggravated kidnapping charge, for which he received the statutory minimum sentence of six years in prison. Before accepting the plea, the trial court admonished defendant as follows: “THE COURT: Mr. Hall, Count I charges you with the offense of Aggravated Kidnaping on April 15th, 1999 in Macon County. It alleges that you knowingly and secretly confined [the victim], a child under the age of 13 years, against her will. Do you understand what the charge is? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: Are you doing this of your own free will? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: This would be a Class X felony. That means the possible penalty could be a fine of $1.00 up to $25,000 and a period of incarceration from 6 years not to exceed 30 years with a mandatory parole of 3 years. Do you understand what the possible penalty could be? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: Also, if you plead guilty, you are waiving or giving up your right to a trial by the court or by the jury You are giving up your right to cross-examine the witnesses that might testify against you. You are giving up your right to subpoena witnesses in to testify for you, and you are giving up your right against self-incrimination. Do you understand if you plead guilty, you are giving up all these rights and we would not have a trial of any type? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: Do you have any questions? THE DEFENDANT: No.” The facts demonstrate that this was an entirely routine guilty plea case. Defendant entered a fully negotiated guilty plea shortly after being charged, the terms of which were hammered out before the relevant hearing commenced. Moreover, before accepting the plea, the trial court expressly admonished defendant as to the elements of the offense (including the fact that defendant knowingly confined the victim), the range of possible penalties, and the consequences of pleading guilty. This is a far cry from Morreale, where, on the morning of trial, an assistant State’s Attorney used defense counsel’s absence as an opportunity to coax a guilty plea out of an inadequately represented defendant, and where the trial court’s admonitions were confined to “the consequences of entering such a plea.” The two cases could not be less alike. Which is not to say that the present case lacks an analog. On the contrary, People v. Ramirez, 162 Ill. 2d 235 (1994), and People v. Jones, 144 Ill. 2d 242 (1991), are squarely on point. In Jones, the defendant pleaded guilty to three murders and was sentenced to death. In his second petition for postconviction relief, the defendant alleged, among other things, that trial counsel was ineffective by “inducting] the defendant to plead guilty by advising him erroneously that the trial judge owed counsel a favor and would not sentence the defendant to death.” Jones, 144 Ill. 2d at 255. In rejecting this argument, Jones explained that the defendant’s allegations were belied by the record, which clearly showed that, before accepting the defendant’s plea, the trial court “questioned the defendant in open court as to whether his plea was obtained by coercion, threats or promises” and “repeatedly warned the defendant that he could receive the death penalty for his crimes.” Jones, 144 Ill. 2d at 263. As importantly, Jones rejected any suggestion that “[the defendant’s] expectation that the death sentence would not be imposed was permissible, given the alleged assurances of his counsel.” Jones, 144 Ill. 2d at 263. To accept such an argument, the court explained, “would require us to characterize the court’s lengthy and exhaustive admonitions as merely a perfunctory or ritualistic formality; a characterization we are unwilling to make.” Jones, 144 Ill. 2d at 263. Similarly, in Ramirez, the defendant pleaded guilty to possession of cannabis with the intent to deliver and was sentenced to five years in prison. Defendant later filed a postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. In support, the defendant alleged that his attorney induced him to plead guilty “by erroneously advising him that he had worked out a deal with the judge whereby defendant would be sentenced to a two-year term of probation.” In rejecting this argument, the court stated: “Our review of the record shows that the allegations made in the defendant’s petition are refuted by the defendant’s responses to the trial court’s questions at the guilty plea hearing, at the sentencing hearing, and at the hearing on the motion to withdraw the defendant’s guilty plea.” Ramirez, 162 Ill. 2d at 240. More specifically, Ramirez noted that, before accepting the defendant’s plea, the trial court asked the defendant “whether he understood the nature of the charges against him,” verified that the defendant “understood the plea agreement,” and asked the defendant “whether anything else had been promised to him.” Ramirez, 162 Ill. 2d at 241. Ultimately, Ramirez concluded that these admonitions, as well as defendant’s on-the-record responses, “contradict the assertions raised in his post-conviction petition that he pled guilty in reliance upon his counsel’s promise that he would receive probation, and that such misrepresentations resulted in his denial of effective assistance of counsel.” Ramirez, 162 Ill. 2d at 243. Notably, in both Jones and Ramirez, the court went out of its way to explain that Morreale was wholly inapplicable. Neither Jones nor Ramirez were represented by their counsel’s youthful associate, and neither was pressured or induced by the assistant State’s Attorney to change his plea while confused and in a state of misapprehension. Ramirez, 162 Ill. 2d at 245; Jones, 144 Ill. 2d at 265. As importantly, the trial court’s admonitions in both cases were “more comprehensive than those required in 1952 when Morreale pleaded guilty, and adequately ensured that the defendant was entering a voluntary plea of guilty.” Ramirez, 162 Ill. 2d at 245; Jones, 144 Ill. 2d at 265. In other words, both Jones and Ramirez treated Morreale as a singular case, controlled by its particular and highly unusual facts. This leads to the obvious question: Is the present case more like Morreale, or more like Jones and Ramirez? There is no question that this case is more like Jones and Ramirez. In all three of these cases, the defendants entered their pleas free of any undue influence from the prosecution. More importantly, in all three cases, the defendants’ claims of ineffective assistance were directly contradicted by the record. In Jones and Ramirez, the defendants claimed that they were given off-the-record assurances concerning their sentences. On the record, however, both defendants denied that any such assurances were given. In this case, defendant claims that he was told that lack of knowledge is not a defense to aggravated kidnapping. On the record, however, defendant was read the charge against him, including the allegation that he knowingly confined the victim, and he specifically stated that he understood it. This case is indistinguishable from Jones and Ramirez, and, as in those cases, we should defer to the record. The majority is certain that the admonishments in this case were powerless to undo “[t]he alleged advice of counsel,” which “would have necessarily influenced defendant’s understanding of the knowledge element as it would be applied to his conduct.” 217 Ill. 2d at 340. The majority then adds that, “[t]o state the obvious, defendant was entitled to rely on the advice of his attorney concerning the legal effect of available evidence and possible defenses to the charge.” 217 Ill. 2d at 340. While it may be true as a general matter that a defendant is entitled to rely on the advice of his counsel, it is not necessarily true in all cases. Indeed, this is the whole point of Jones and Ramirez. Jones and Ramirez clearly teach that a defendant is not entitled to rely on the advice of his attorney to contradict his own unequivocal responses to on-the-record admonishments. To allow otherwise would be to reduce admonishments to “merely a perfunctory or ritualistic formality.” Jones, 144 Ill. 2d at 263. In sum, the record clearly demonstrates that, prior to accepting defendant’s guilty plea, the trial court asked defendant whether he understood the nature of the offense, including the allegation that he acted knowingly. Defendant responded in the affirmative. Under both Jones and Ramirez, this court should respect that answer and reject defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance. JUSTICES FITZGERALD and GARMAN join in this dissent.