People v. Irrelevant
| Decision Date | 08 December 2021 |
| Docket Number | 4-20-0626 |
| Citation | 2021 IL App (4th) 200626,194 N.E.3d 564,457 Ill.Dec. 75 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kawika T. IRRELEVANT, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
James E. Chadd, Catherine K. Hart, and Joshua Scanlon, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Springfield, for appellant.
Bradley M. Hauge, State's Attorney, of Lincoln (Patrick Delfino, David J. Robinson, and David E. Mannchen, of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.
¶ 1 Defendant, Kawika T. Irrelevant, appeals from the circuit court's denial of his amended motion to withdraw his guilty plea and vacate the judgment. On appeal, defendant argues this court should reverse that denial and remand for further proceedings because (1) the factual basis provided in support of the guilty plea was insufficient and (2) the combination of his reasonable misapprehension of fact and law concerning the requirement he serve 85% of any sentence imposed and the circuit court's insufficient determination of his understanding of the terms of the plea and its consequences show it was more than likely he never fully understood what he was agreeing to and would have rejected the plea agreement and not pleaded guilty had he known about the 85% requirement. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
¶ 4 In September 2016, the State charged defendant by information with the offense of being an armed habitual criminal ( 720 ILCS 5/24-1.7 (West 2016) ), a Class X felony. Specifically, the State alleged that defendant, on or about September 13, 2016, "knowingly possessed, received, sold, or transferred a firearm after having been convicted two or more times of a forcible felony or any violation of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act that is punishable as a Class 3 felony or higher." The State further alleged that any prison sentence imposed would have to be served at least 85% under the truth-in-sentencing provisions ( 730 ILCS 5/3-6-3(a)(2)(ii) (West 2016)), meaning defendant could receive no more than 4.5 days of sentence credit for each month of any prison sentence.
¶ 5 At a hearing that same month, the circuit court admonished defendant as to the charge and the possible penalties. With respect to the possible penalties, the court admonished defendant, in part, as follows:
After admonishing defendant as to the charge and the possible penalties, the court asked defendant if he had any questions. Defendant indicated he did not.
¶ 7 In March 2018, the circuit court held a plea hearing. The court stated it had received a document indicating that defendant desired to plead guilty based upon a partially negotiated plea agreement. Defendant confirmed that was his desire. The court stated it also had received information indicating that defendant had rejected a prior plea offer from the State and, at the request of the State, would first review the rejected offer with defendant.
¶ 8 As to the rejected offer, the circuit court began by briefly admonishing defendant as to the charge and the possible penalties. With respect to the possible penalties, the court did not discuss the requirement that any prison sentence imposed would have to be served at least 85%. After admonishing defendant as to the charge and the possible penalties, the court asked defendant if he had any questions. Defendant indicated he did not. The court then asked the State about the prior plea offer. The State stated it tendered an offer of "17 years in the Department of Corrections at 85 percent, plus the statutory minimum fines and costs," in exchange for defendant pleading guilty to the charged offense. The court asked defense counsel and defendant about the offer. Both confirmed knowledge of the offer, and defendant confirmed it was his decision to reject the offer.
¶ 9 The circuit court turned next to the partially negotiated plea agreement. The court reviewed the alleged terms of the plea agreement with defendant:
"[Y]ou are going to admit or plead guilty to the offense of armed habitual criminal, a Class X felony; and in exchange for that, the State is going to cap their recommendation, meaning they are going to ask for no more than the 17 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections."
Defendant confirmed that was his understanding of the agreement. The court asked defendant if his signature was on the bottom of the document that contained the terms of the plea agreement. Defendant confirmed it was his signature. The court asked defendant if he had the opportunity to review the document with counsel before he signed it. Defendant indicated he did. The court asked defendant if he understood the document. Defendant indicated he did. The court asked defendant if he signed the document of his own free will. Defendant indicated he did.
¶ 10 After confirming the terms of the plea agreement, the circuit court admonished defendant as to the charge and the possible penalties. With respect to the possible penalties, the court admonished defendant, in part, as follows:
"Now, there is a sentencing provision that applies in this case; and, that is, that this under truth in sentencing is an 85 percent case, so whatever sentence you receive, you will have to do 85 percent of that sentence, which means pursuant to Illinois Compiled Statutes, upon conviction for this offense, the defendant will receive no more than 4.5 days of sentence credit for each month of sentence of imprisonment."
After admonishing defendant as to the charge and the possible penalties, the court asked defendant if he had "any questions *** about the charge that you are pleading guilty to or the possible penalties that could be imposed." Defendant indicated he did not. The court admonished defendant as to the rights he was giving up if he pleaded guilty. Defendant indicated he understood. The court asked defendant if he was forced or threatened to plead guilty. Defendant indicated he was not. The court asked defendant if he was promised anything outside the plea agreement in exchange for pleading guilty. Defendant indicated he was not. The court admonished defendant as to some possible collateral consequences for pleading guilty. Defendant indicated he understood. The court asked defendant if he desired to plead guilty or not guilty. Defendant stated, "Guilty."
¶ 11 The State provided the following factual basis in support of the guilty plea:
Defense counsel agreed the State had witnesses who would testify substantially as indicated. However, counsel noted defendant did "dispute the prior Class X felony, but I would imagine we can resolve that on a pre-sentence report."
¶ 12 The circuit court accepted defendant's guilty plea, finding it to be knowingly and voluntarily made and supported by a sufficient factual basis, and ordered the preparation of a presentence investigation report (PSI).
¶ 14 In May 2018, the circuit court held a sentencing hearing. The court received a PSI and heard evidence in aggravation. The PSI provided, in relevant part, the following. Defendant was born on June 10, 1966. In December 1984, defendant was convicted in Logan County case No. 83-CF-56 of committing a residential burglary, a Class 1 felony, on November 26, 1983. In June 1988, defendant was convicted in Logan County case No. 88-CF-11 of committing the unlawful delivery of a controlled substance, a Class 2 felony, on October 20, 1986.
¶ 15 The State recommended that defendant be sentenced to 17 years’ imprisonment. In making its recommendation, the State highlighted defendant's criminal history but noted it was not asking the court to consider defendant's convictions in case Nos. 83-CF-56 or 88-CF-11, as those convictions were used as elements of the offense. Conversely, the defense recommended the court enter a sentence where defendant would "get out of prison in his early 60s or late 50s."
¶ 16 Following the...
To continue reading
Request your trial