People v. Jones

• Decision Date: 23 March 2020
• Docket Number: NO. 4-17-0290,4-17-0290
• Citation: 2020 IL App (4th) 170290 -U
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILLIAM JONES JR., Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

2020 IL App (4th) 170290-U

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILLIAM JONES JR., Defendant-Appellant.

NO. 4-17-0290

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT

March 23, 2020

NOTICE

This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Macon County

No. 08CF1456

Honorable Jeffrey S. Geisler, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the judgment of the court.

Presiding Justice Steigmann and Justice Knecht concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The trial court properly dismissed defendant's amended postconviction petition.

¶ 2 In April of 2017, the trial court entered an order dismissing defendant's amended petition for postconviction relief. On appeal, defendant argues the court erred in dismissing his claim that he was denied the benefit of his bargain from the plea agreement he entered into with the State. In the alternative, defendant argues he did not receive effective assistance of plea counsel or reasonable assistance from postconviction counsel. We affirm.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 On October 7, 2008, the State charged defendant, William Jones Jr., by information in Macon County case No. 08-CF-1456 (hereinafter, case No. 08-CF-1456) with unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver with a prior unlawful possession of a controlled substance conviction (720 ILCS 570/401(a)(2)(B) (West 2006)) (count I), unlawful possession of a controlled substance with a prior unlawful possession of a controlled substance conviction (720 ILCS 570/402(a)(2)(B) (West 2006)) (count II), and unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon (720 ILCS 5/24-1.1(a) (West 2006)) (count III), stemming from a search of defendant's home on October 2, 2008.

¶ 5 Defendant was arrested on October 2, 2008. On October 10, 2008, defendant was released on bond.

¶ 6 On October 13, 2009, defendant was arrested in Macon County case No. 09-CF-1652 (hereinafter, case No. 09-CF-1652), a matter unrelated to case No. 08-CF-1456. On June 3, 2010, following a jury trial, defendant was convicted in case No. 09-CF-1652, and on August 12, 2010, he was sentenced to 12 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC).

¶ 7 On September 1, 2015, defendant pleaded guilty in case No. 08-CF-1456 to count I. During the hearing on defendant's guilty plea, the following colloquy occurred:

"THE COURT: William Jones 08-CF-1456. People versus William Jones. Cause recalled. People present by Ms. Wagoner. The defendant is present in custody. Mr. Tighe is present. I believe this was set for Jury Trial this morning.

MR. TIGHE [(ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER)]: It was, Your Honor. We have an agreed disposition now.

THE COURT: And what are the terms, please?

MR. TIGHE: Defendant will plead guilty to Count I. Counts II and III will be dismissed. There's an agreed sentence of 15 years in [I]DOC. *** [T]his is a 75 percent sentence by statute. And it would have been served consecutively to the term he's serving right now on another case. He is still in [I]DOC custodyuntil, I believe, next month.

MS. WAGONER [(ASSISTANT STATE'S ATTORNEY)]: Judge, and that other case is Macon County Case Number 09-CF-1652.

THE COURT: Does the defendant have any credit for time served dates in this case?

MR. TIGHE: He did post a bond to get out on this charge. That's been so long ago though, unfortunately, I don't have that information ready today.

MS. WAGONER: Judge, there was [a] Presentence Report that was prepared back in December of 2010, which lays out some dates that *** he was in custody.

* * *

THE COURT: Okay. According to the Presentence Report, custody dates are 10-3-08 through 10-10-08 and 10-13-09 through 9-12-10. And then it says 12-10-10. Apparently, until—well, it would be yesterday, 8-31-15. Is that correct?

MS. WAGONER: Well, Judge, I don't think—I think that once he gets to the Department of Corrections because there's some overlap and he was actually serving a Department of Corrections sentence, he won't get credit for those additional days because he was *** according to the Presentence Report the sentence for the '09 case was—let's see, August 12th of 2010, according to the Presentence Report.

* * *

MS. WAGONER: There was a Jury Trial in that case. And then was sentenced on August 12th of 2010, if I recall correctly.

THE COURT: That's correct. The sentence was 8-12-10, which would mean then among the credit dates it would be 10-13-09 to 8-12-10. Right?

MS. WAGONER: Yes. That's my understanding. 'Cause he wouldn't get double credit for the time that he was sentenced to the Department of Corrections on the other case.

MR. TIGHE: We agree with that.

THE COURT: Well, just to clarify, for the record, it looks like the credit dates are 10-03-08 through 10-10-08 and 10-13-09 through 8-12-10. Unless, he was in custody in both cases simultaneously. I don't know. Does counsel know? What we're gonna do is we'll take the plea, but I'd like—I'd like you please to review the records so, we get the credit dates. 'Cause this is the kind that comes back all the time.

* * *

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Jones, do you think you understand what the proposed plea agreement is that's stated here?

DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Is that your understanding of the proposed plea agreement?

DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor."

¶ 8 Later during the plea hearing, the lawyers and the trial court again discussed the sentence credit issue and the following colloquy ensued:

"MR. TIGHE: Your Honor, I would just make the suggestion that we perhaps stay the mittimus for a week so, we can figure out your request on making sure we have the credit for days served right. That was just—THE COURT: Well, he can go back now. I mean, you can come in and just—

MS. WAGONER: Yeah. I don't think he needs to be present for us to determine the credit time served.

THE COURT: No. He doesn't have to be.

MS. WAGONER: We just figure that off the record.

THE COURT: I'll put the credit dates as I stated. And then, if you look at it and you find out it's wrong just let me know and I'll sent [sic] an amended mittimus to the Department of Corrections.

MR. TIGHE: Understood. All right. Thank you."

¶ 9 Consistent with the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced defendant to 15 years in prison to be served at 75%, to run consecutively to the sentence imposed in case No. 09-CF-1652, and 3 years of mandatory supervised release (MSR). The court's written judgment also stated: "The Court further finds that the defendant is entitled to receive credit for time actually served in custody from 10/3/08-10/10/08 and from 10/13/09-8/12/10."

¶ 10 On October 29, 2015, defendant pro se filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (Act) (725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq. (West 2014)). In defendant's postconviction petition, he alleged that he "plead [sic] guilty to the charge of unlawful possession [of a] controlled substance with the intent to deliver, and was sentenced to 15 years in [IDOC], with 3 years MSR and [c]redit for 306 days time spent in [c]ustody." Defendant further alleged that he "received a calculation work sheet from the IDOC regarding his projected release and [m]andatory out-date for [case No. 08-CF-1456]" and that the calculation worksheet "[did] not reflect the credit for 306 days [ ]sentence credit that [defendant]had served. [Defendant] was informed that he was not receiving the agreed upon 306 days credit." Defendant stated that "his due process rights have been [v]iolated because he is not receiving the benefit of his fully negotiated plea." Defendant requested the trial court "[m]odify the sentencing [o]rder and reduce the [s]entence to reflect the [o]rder of the [s]entencing [c]ourt and [c]redit [him] with 306 days." Defendant attached to his petition the sentencing judgment, the information stating the charge to which he pleaded guilty, and the IDOC sentence calculation worksheet. The IDOC sentence calculation worksheet stated defendant's "adjusted proj[ected] out date" is January 13, 2027.

¶ 11 On February 2, 2016, the trial court found that defendant's postconviction petition had been pending in excess of 90 days and appointed the public defender to represent defendant in the postconviction proceeding.

¶ 12 On December 19, 2016, postconviction counsel filed an amended petition for postconviction relief. In the amended petition, defendant argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel from his plea attorney and that he had been denied the benefit of his bargain under the plea agreement he entered into with the State. The amended postconviction petition stated, in relevant part:

"Pursuant to plea agreement, [defendant] was given credit for time previously served in custody from October 3, 2008 to October 10, 2008, and from October 13, 2009 to August 12, 2010.

However, the [IDOC] did not credit [defendant] for the period of time from October 13, 2009 through August 12, 2010.

Prior to the plea, [defendant's] counsel, Mr. Timothy Tighe, failed to advise [defendant] of the amount of credit he would receive towards his sentence.

Indeed, at the time of the plea, Mr. Timothy Tighe was unsure how much credit [defendant] would receive.

If [defendant] had been aware that he would not receive credit for the time served in custody from October 13, 2009 through August 12, 2010, he would not have entered a plea of guilty.

[Defendant] maintains his actual innocence of these charges.

It is clear that the conduct of [defendant's] attorney, Mr. Timothy Tighe, was ineffective for failing to ensure [defendant's] plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently, and moreover, [defendant] was deprived of the benefit of his bargain."

¶ 13 Postconviction counsel attached a certificate to the amended petition in compliance with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 651(c) (eff. Feb. 6, 2013). In it, postconviction counsel certified that she "made any amendments to the petition necessary...