People v. Allen
Decision Date | 11 August 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 4-02-0950.,4-02-0950. |
Citation | 287 Ill.Dec. 23,351 Ill. App.3d 599,815 N.E.2d 426 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jackie A. ALLEN, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Michael J. Pelletier, Deputy Defender (Court-appointed), Rebecca I. Levy, Assistant Defender, Office of State Appellate Defender, Chicago, for Jackie A. Allen. John C. Piland, Champaign County State's Attorney, Urbana, Norbert J. Goetten, Director, Robert J. Biderman, Deputy Director, Denise M. Ambrose Staff Attorney, State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, Springfield, for the People.
In March 2002, a grand jury charged defendant, Jackie A. Allen, with burglary (720 ILCS 5/19-1(a) (West 2000) ( )). The day of his September 2002 trial, he sought to plead guilty to a lesser charge under a proposed plea agreement with the State. Upon ascertaining that the State had not yet drafted the charge, the trial court refused to consider the plea agreement. The trial proceeded, and the jury found defendant guilty as charged. At a joint October 2002 hearing, the court denied defendant's posttrial motion and sentenced him to 15 years' imprisonment.
Defendant appeals, contending (1) the court abused its discretion by refusing to consider the plea agreement, (2) the State committed reversible error by misstating the evidence in its closing argument, and (3) the court's 15-year sentence is excessive. Because we agree with the first contention, we reverse and remand.
The grand jury's indictment alleged that on December 18, 2001, defendant committed burglary in that he, "or one for whose conduct he was legally responsible, knowingly and without authority, entered a building of Eagle Head Enterprises [(Eagle Head)], * * * at 130 E. Main, Tolono, Illinois, with the intent to commit therein a theft."
On September 11, 2002, the scheduled day of trial, the court asked defense counsel, before voir dire, if defendant "still persist[ed] in his plea of not guilty" to the burglary charge. Defense counsel replied: The court then asked defense counsel:
The parties selected the jury, and trial on the burglary charge began. A safe was stolen from Eagle Head on December 18, 2001. Suzan and Christina Lambert testified to seeing defendant's nephew, Timothy Burnett, pulling on the door of Eagle Head the evening of the burglary. A police officer, Everett Harper, testified to having a telephone conversation with defendant, in which defendant admitted helping Burnett plan the crime. Defendant even told Harper where he could find the safe, and Harper later found it half-submerged in a pond, just where defendant said it would be. In a voluntary interview at the police station, defendant told Harper he and Burnett had driven to Tolono, loaded up the safe, and taken it to his home in Urbana to cut it open. Defendant also told Harper the safe contained only documents and no money (something he could have known, of course, only if he had looked inside the safe). In his own case in chief, defendant presented alibi witnesses and then took the stand and denied making the incriminating statements to Harper or helping with the crime. The jury found defendant guilty of burglary.
In his posttrial motion, defendant alleged:
In the October 2002 hearing on the motion and sentencing, the court stated:
The court then denied defendant's posttrial motion and, after a sentencing hearing, sentenced him to 15 years' imprisonment.
This appeal followed.
Defendant argues the trial court erred by refusing to consider the negotiated plea agreement. The court's rationale for refusing to do so was twofold: (1) it was impossible for defendant to plead guilty to a charge the State had not yet filed; and (2) granting a continuance long enough for the State to draft the charge would have been unfair to the people who had arrived for jury duty and who were, at that very moment, waiting outside the courtroom for voir dire to begin.
Supreme Court Rule 402(d)(2) provides:
177 Ill.2d R. 402(d)(2).
The prosecutor told the court he had "tendered an offer to [defense counsel]," the approval of which was "in the discretion of the [c]ourt at this point." Defense counsel told the court defendant had "decided to accept that offer if the [court] would entertain it." Thus, according to both parties' unequivocal representations to the court, a viable plea agreement was on the table.
This case is distinguishable from People v. Henderson, 211 Ill.2d 90, 95, 284 Ill.Dec. 278, 809 N.E.2d 1224, 1227 (2004), in which the defendant rejected the State's offer and made a counteroffer, which the State never accepted. "The State did not offer to negotiate further, it did not ask the court for the opportunity to do so or protest the deprivation of such an opportunity, and it did not indicate that an offer was pending." Henderson, 211 Ill.2d at 97, 284 Ill.Dec. 278, 809 N.E.2d at 1228. The supreme court concluded "there was no negotiated plea agreement presented by the parties for the court's consideration." Henderson, 211 Ill.2d at 106, 284 Ill.Dec. 278, 809 N.E.2d at 1233.
In the present case, by contrast, the parties told the court they had a meeting of the minds, a plea agreement. The State argues "the parties left the [trial] court in the dark respecting the terms of the agreement." On the contrary, the court left itself "in the dark." Evidently, the parties were fully prepared to disclose the terms of the proposed plea agreement. The court had to decide whether it would...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Hayden
...to prevent undue delays in the disposition of cases caused by abuses of procedural rules); see also People v. Allen , 351 Ill. App. 3d 599, 607, 287 Ill.Dec. 23, 815 N.E.2d 426, 432 (2004) (where this court concluded that a trial court could enforce a plea agreement deadline as long as the ......
-
Nationwide Advantage Mortg. Co. v. Ortiz
...29 Second, defendant notes that the precedential value of a decision is limited to its particular facts. People v. Allen, 351 Ill.App.3d 599, 606, 287 Ill.Dec. 23, 815 N.E.2d 426 (2004). In this case, defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of standing as part of a motion seeking leave......
-
People v. Ware
...court would not consider the plea agreement on the sole ground the trial had already begun. ¶ 26 We find People v. Allen, 351 Ill.App.3d 599, 287 Ill.Dec. 23, 815 N.E.2d 426 (2004), relied upon by defendant, distinguishable from the case at bar. In Allen, the trial court refused to consider......
-
People v. Trimarco, 2-04-1239.
...It is well settled that the precedential scope of a decision is limited to the facts before the court. People v. Allen, 351 Ill.App.3d 599, 606, 287 Ill.Dec. 23, 815 N.E.2d 426 (2004). As will be explained, the majority, through faulty research, logic, and reason, finds legal precedent wher......