People v. Gray

• Docket Number: 4-23-0076
• Decision Date: 01 December 2023
• Citation: People v. Gray, 234 N.E.3d 1252 (Ill. App. 2023)
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio Vincent GRAY, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois

234 N.E.3d 1252

2023 IL App (4th) 230076

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Antonio Vincent GRAY, Defendant-Appellant.

NO. 4-23-0076

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District.

Filed December 1, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Rock Island County, No. 22CF470, Honorable Peter W. Church, Judge Presiding.

James E. Chadd, Douglas R. Hoff, and Bryon M. Reina, of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.

Dora Villarreal, State’s Attorney, of Rock Island (Patrick Delfino, David J. Robinson, and Courtney M. O’Connor, of State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, of counsel), for the People.

OPINION

PRESIDING JUSTICE DeARMOND delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 In August 2022, by way of a fully negotiated plea agreement, defendant, Antonio Vincent Gray, pleaded guilty to possession with the intent to deliver methamphetamine. Per the agreement, the circuit court sentenced him to 10 years in prison. Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea in September 2022, and he later filed an amended version in December. The court eventually denied the motion.

¶ 2 On appeal, defendant raises multiple arguments, including (1) defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance because she labored under a conflict of interest during the postplea proceedings and should have withdrawn or, alternatively, the circuit court should have inquired into defense counsel’s effectiveness under People v. Krankel, 102 Ill. 2d 181, 80 Ill.Dec. 62, 464 N.E.2d 1045 (1984), (2) defense counsel failed to strictly comply with the requirements of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (eff. July 1, 2017), and (3) the court denied him due process by failing to substantially comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 45 (eff. Jan. 1, 2023). Because we agree with the second argument, we vacate and remand with directions.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 In June 2022, the State charged defendant by information with four counts relating to dealings in March and June of that year: two counts of possession with the intent to deliver methamphetamine, Class X felonies (720 ILCS 646/55(a)(1), (2)(C) (West 2020)); one count of unlawful delivery of a controlled substance, a Class 1 felony (720 ILCS 570/401(c)(2) (West 2020)); and one count of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, a Class 1 felony (720 ILCS 570/401(c)(2) (West 2020)). At his initial appearance, defendant informed the circuit court, "I also would like the record to reflect that I’m on parole in Iowa for drug charges as well." While the court was appointing the public defender to represent defendant, he interjected, "I have no intention of going to trial." The court tried to explain the process to defendant when he interrupted again, saying, "I want to plead guilty." The public defender informed defendant he would visit him in the jail the next day, and defendant acquiesced.

¶ 5 When defendant appeared for a pretrial conference on August 25, 2022, the circuit court handled two different matters. First, defense counsel informed the court defendant "has a Waiver of Extradition to sign for Iowa," and this colloquy followed:

"THE COURT: All right. I understand that’s what you want to do, [defendant], is waive the extradition hearing; is that right?

DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Okay. Go ahead and sign the document. That just says that Scott County, or Iowa, can come pick you up.

DEFENDANT: (Complies.)"

Defense counsel pivoted immediately, informing the court, "And then in 22-CF-470 he is going to be pleading guilty to Count 1." Counsel explained the fully negotiated plea bargain as, "He will be sentenced to 10 years in the Department of Corrections. Fines, fee, and costs at the minimums and reduced to judgment, and Counts 2 through 4 will be dismissed." The State confirmed the deal’s details, and the court addressed defendant:

"THE COURT: Okay. So then, [defendant], did you hear the agreement your attorney explained to the Court?

DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: Do you understand the agreement?

DEFENDANT: Yes."

The court then explained to defendant that he would be pleading guilty to one count of possession with the intent to deliver methamphetamine, specifically possessing with the intent to deliver 15 or more but less than 100 grams of methamphetamine. The court outlined the potential penalty for this Class X felony—6 to 30 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections (DOC), followed by 18 months’ mandatory supervised release (MSR) and a fine of up to $250,000. When the court asked, "So do you understand the charge and the possible penalties?", defendant answered, "Yes, sir." The court went on to advise defendant of his rights, including the presumption of innocence, the right to a trial before a judge or a jury, the State’s burden of proof, and the right to confront witnesses. This colloquy followed:

"THE COURT: When you plead guilty you’re giving up all the rights I just explained, [defendant]; do you understand that?

DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor, I understand.

THE COURT: Is anybody forcing you or threatening you in any way to get you to plead guilty?

DEFENDANT: No, sir.

THE COURT: All right."

The State provided a factual basis, the defense conceded it was sufficient, and the court accepted it. The court found "the plea is knowing[ly] and voluntar[il]y made" and decided "to accept the plea, [and] agree to be bound by the agreement."

¶ 6 As the circuit court proceeded to sentencing, defendant asked, "What time will the sentencing take place?" The court answered, "Right now." Defendant did not object. The court sentenced him pursuant to the fully negotiated agreement—10 years in DOC followed by 18 months’ MSR. As the court explained the remaining terms, defendant interrupted, and this exchanged occurred:

"THE COURT: You have a question?

DEFENDANT: The time that I’m taking right now, is there any way possible that this time that I just got sentenced to can run concurrent with Iowa?

THE COURT: There’s nothing in the agreement that I was presented that that’s how that would work.

DEFENDANT: Yeah, because no matter what I do over there, am I still going to have to come back here? I’m being sentenced today, but I probably won’t start this time for two years.

THE COURT: Well, [defendant], that’s the way this is working. That was the agreement. That was what was presented to the Court. That’s what we have done. All right. So that’s where we are at.

DEFENDANT: All right. Fine."

The court then admonished defendant of his appellate rights. It asked defendant if he had any questions, and defendant said, "No, sir."

¶ 7 At the 30-day deadline, defense counsel filed a motion to withdraw the guilty plea and vacate the sentence. The motion asserted counsel received a letter from defendant on September 23, 2022, stating he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea. Counsel’s motion noted she had not communicated with defendant and did not have a specific reason for withdrawing the plea. Defendant, meanwhile, filed a pro se "Motion to Withdraw Plea" on October 11, 2022. Defendant’s motion gave two reasons for withdrawing the plea, alleging:

"#1) on Aug. 25th, 2022, when accepting the plea, I believed and was under the impression that by signing (my)/a waiver to Iowa that I would be immediately sent back to Iowa to serve my prison time there. I unfortunately did not understand the plea (and its stipulations) at the time I accepted it.

#2) During my time in Rock Island County Jail, and because of the situation(s) and circumstances pertaining to my case (22 CF 470), I did not feel safe and was also under extreme duress up unto and at the time of sentencing." (Emphases in original.)

Defense counsel filed an amended motion to withdraw the plea of guilty and vacate the judgment on December 6, 2022. Absent the emphases, this motion recited defendant’s pro se motion almost verbatim. Defense counsel also filed a standard certificate, stating her compliance with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (eff. July 1, 2017).

¶ 8 The circuit court was scheduled to hear arguments on defendant’s amended motion on January 6, 2023, but the hearing was continued by the agreement of the parties. The same day, defendant mailed a letter to the court, asking, "I was hoping to be informed of the status of my current (criminal) case; #22CF470 please and thank you." The next day, defendant mailed another letter saying he wanted to appeal. The court filed defendant’s two letters on January 11 and 12, 2023, respectively.

¶ 9 The circuit court held a hearing on defendant’s motion to withdraw the guilty plea a few weeks later, on January 25, 2023. At the outset, defense counsel informed the court she filed the proper writ to secure defendant’s appearance, but, due to inclement weather, the DOC could not transport defendant to the hearing. She said she issued "a Zoom writ" to have defendant appear remotely. The court took over from there.

"THE COURT: Okay. Any objection from the State?

MS. LEE: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. [Defendant], then are you agreeable to proceeding with your hearing via Zoom, as opposed to continuing the hearing so you can come back at a later date, and we wouldn’t be able to do the hearing today? Is that all right with you?

THE DEFENDANT: Well, I would like to do whatever the Court is pleased with. Zoom or in person is fine with me.

THE COURT: All right. Well, we’re all here in terms of present either personally or via Zoom. With that said, then I’m inclined to go ahead and proceed with the hearing today and do it by Zoom, and I don’t think that will negatively impact in any way my ability to make the correct decision. So, with that said, I’ve signed that order regarding the habeas corpus being an order for the writ to be a Zoom hearing."

Before reaching defendant’s motion to withdraw the guilty plea, the court addressed defendant’s letters to the court, informing defendant the court had stricken the notice of appeal. Defendan...