People v. Mast

• Decision Date: 30 June 1999
• Docket Number: No. 2-98-0690.,2-98-0690.
• Citation: People v. Mast, 713 N.E.2d 242, 305 Ill.App.3d 727, 238 Ill.Dec. 996 (Ill. App. 1999)
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard L. MAST, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois

713 N.E.2d 242

305 Ill. App.3d 727

238 Ill.Dec. 996

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.Richard L. MAST, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 2-98-0690.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District.

June 30, 1999.

G. Joseph Weller, Deputy Defender and Paul Alexander Rogers(Court-appointed), Office of the State Appellate Defender, Elgin, for Richard L. Mast.

Joseph E. Birkett, DuPage County State's Attorney, Wheaton, Martin P. Moltz, Deputy Director, Gregory L. Slovacek, State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, Elgin, for the People.

Presiding Justice BOWMANdelivered the opinion of the court:

Defendant, Richard Mast, appeals the trial court's order denying his motion to reconsider sentence.Defendant requests that this court summarily reverse and remand this cause for further proceedings in compliance with Supreme Court Rule 604(d)(145 Ill.2d R. 604(d)).

Defendant was charged by indictment with 12 counts of reckless homicide.720 ILCS 5/9-3(b)(West 1996).All charges pertained to the death of the same individual, Nicole Izzo.On March 23, 1998, defendant pleaded guilty to count I, which alleged that he had been driving "while under the influence of cocaine to a degree which rendered him incapable of safely driving" and that he had acted recklessly by driving "at a speed which was greater than reasonable and proper."In exchange for the guilty plea, the State agreed to dismiss the other counts of the indictment.No agreement was made regarding defendant's sentence.After admonishing defendant and hearing a factual basis, the trial court accepted the plea, describing it as an "open" plea.The court commented that there was no agreement as to a specific sentence.The court set the matter for sentencing.

At the sentencing hearing, held on May 8, 1998, the trial court sentenced defendant to a term of five years' imprisonment and ordered him to pay restitution of $2,432.

On May 12, 1998, defendant filed a motion to reconsider his sentence.The motion was heard on May 26.At the beginning of the hearing, defense counsel filed a certificate of compliance with Supreme Court Rule 604(d).As counsel filed the certificate, he commented, "I'm filing it in court today.I did receive the transcripts, thanks to the Court Reporters."The certificate indicated that counsel had consulted with defendant to determine defendant's contentions of error in the case and had also "examined the trial court file and report of proceedings of the sentencing hearing."Following the hearing, the trial court denied defendant's motion.Thereafter, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.

Initially, we address the question raised by the State regarding whether defendant's guilty plea can be characterized as an "open" plea.Relying on People v. Evans,174 Ill.2d 320, 220 Ill.Dec. 332, 673 N.E.2d 244(1996), the State contends that any concession by the State converts an open plea into a negotiated plea.The State asserts that defendant's plea should be considered a "negotiated" plea because, in exchange for defendant's guilty plea, the State agreed to dismiss the other charges against defendant and to allow for certain sentencing considerations, i.e., a sentence within the statutory sentencing range allowed for the offense with which defendant was charged.The State maintains that, if defendant's plea constitutes a negotiated plea, compliance with Supreme Court Rule 604(d) is not required.This court, then, would be required to dismiss defendant's appeal because of his failure to file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea before challenging his sentence on appeal.

We consider defendant's plea to be in the nature of a "partially negotiated" plea and note that the supreme court has not yet resolved whether a defendant whose guilty plea was partially negotiated in the manner that occurred here may challenge only his sentence on review.

In Evans,the defendants and the State entered into negotiated plea agreements in which the defendants pleaded guilty to certain charges in exchange for the State's agreement to dismiss other charges and recommend specific sentences.Under those particular circumstances, our supreme court held that, if a defendant in a negotiated plea agreement case wanted to challenge only his sentence, he must move to withdraw the guilty plea and vacate the judgment against him before seeking review of his case.Evans,174 Ill.2d at 332, 220 Ill.Dec. 332, 673 N.E.2d 244.The court determined that to allow otherwise would have the effect of holding the State to its part of the negotiated plea agreement while permitting defendant to unilaterally renege or modify the sentence to which he had previously agreed.Evans,174 Ill.2d at 327, 220 Ill.Dec. 332, 673 N.E.2d 244.

The supreme court took the Evans holding one step further in People v. Linder,186 Ill.2d 67, 237 Ill.Dec. 129, 708 N.E.2d 1169(1999).In Linder,defendants in two separate cases had agreed to plead guilty to certain charges in exchange for the State's dismissing other charges and recommending a sentencing cap.In each case the sentencing cap was less than the potential maximum sentence each defendant could have received had he not agreed to a cap.The court held that, where a defendant pleads guilty in exchange for the State's dismissal of certain charges andthe State's recommendation of a cap on his sentence, the defendant could not file a motion to reconsider his sentence without first moving to withdraw his guilty plea.Linder,186 Ill.2d at 72,237 Ill.Dec. 129,708 N.E.2d 1169.Relying on Evans,the court reasoned that, where the sentence imposed is within the agreed-upon cap, permitting a defendant to seek reconsideration of his sentence without also moving to withdraw his guilty plea unfairly binds the State to the terms of the plea agreement while allowing the defendant the opportunity to modify or avoid those terms.Linder,186 Ill.2d at 74,237 Ill.Dec. 129,708 N.E.2d 1169.

Relying on the findings in Evans and Linder, this court in People v. Knowles,304 Ill.App.3d 472, 238 Ill.Dec. 136, 710 N.E.2d 1238(1999), andPeople v. Wyatt,305 Ill. App.3d 291, 238 Ill.Dec. 621, 712 N.E.2d 343(1999), reached different conclusions regarding the issue of whether a defendant who had entered into in a "partially negotiated" plea agreement may file a motion to reconsider his sentence without first moving to withdraw his guilty plea.In both cases the plea agreement did not provide for a specific sentence or a sentencing cap.In Knowles,the defendant pleaded guilty in exchange for the State's agreement to charge him with a less harsh drug offense than the one for which he was originally indicted.Because the severity of the charge was reduced, the sentence the defendant faced was also reduced.No agreement was made between the State and the defendant regarding a specific sentence or a sentencing cap.This court, with Justice McLaren dissenting, determined that "even though the [plea] agreement did not specifically provide a sentence or a cap on a sentence, the agreement did present sentencing possibilities to the defendant that were not available to the defendant under the original indictment."Knowles,304 Ill.App.3d at 474, 238 Ill.Dec. 136, 710 N.E.2d 1238.The court concluded that allowing the defendant to unilaterally modify the agreement while binding the State to the terms of the agreement would violate the policy set forth by the supreme court in Linder and Evans.Knowles,304 Ill.App.3d at 474, 238 Ill.Dec. 136, 710 N.E.2d 1238.

In Knowles,Justice McLaren disagreed with the majority's application of the contract rationale of Linder, People v. Clark,183 Ill.2d 261, 233 Ill.Dec. 331, 700 N.E.2d 1039(1998), andEvans to the situation in Knowles.In Linder, Clark, and Evans, some agreement as to sentencing recommendations had existed, but in Knowles"neither an agreement nor a discussion as to sentence was ever broached."(Emphasis in original.)Knowles,304 Ill.App.3d at 476, 238 Ill.Dec. 136, 710 N.E.2d 1238(McLaren, J., dissenting).Justice McLaren considered speculative the majority's finding that by pleading to the reduced charge, which was subject to lesser penalties than the State's original charge against him, the defendant had agreed to any sentence accessible to the court under the new charge and that, therefore, this amounted to a sentencing agreement.Knowles,304 Ill.App.3d at 476-477, 238 Ill.Dec. 136, 710 N.E.2d 1238(McLaren, J., dissenting).According to the dissenting justice, the majority had extended the reasoning of Evans, Clark, and Linder"to cover what it finds to be an implicit agreement as to sentence."(Emphasis in original.)Knowles,304 Ill.App.3d at 476, 238 Ill.Dec. 136, 710 N.E.2d 1238(McLaren, J., dissenting).Justice McLaren pointed out that the supreme court had not, thus far, "ventured into these waters."Knowles,304 Ill.App.3d at 476-77, 238 Ill.Dec. 136, 710 N.E.2d 1238(McLaren, J., dissenting).Justice McLaren concluded that no evidence, explicit or implicit, existed to show that as part of the plea agreement the defendant had agreed to accept any sentence possible under the reduced charge.Knowles,304 Ill.App.3d at 476-477, 238 Ill.Dec. 136, 710 N.E.2d 1238(McLaren, J., dissenting).Therefore, the defendant was not attempting to unilaterally modify "the agreement," and the State was not bound to the terms of the "agreement" because no agreement existed as to sentence.Knowles,304 Ill.App.3d at 477, 238 Ill.Dec. 136, 710 N.E.2d 1238(McLaren, J., dissenting).Consequently, defendant should have been allowed to challenge his sentence on appeal without first moving to vacate the judgment and withdraw his plea.Knowles,304 Ill.App.3d at 479, 238 Ill.Dec. 136, 710 N.E.2d 1238(McLaren, J., dissenting).

In Wyatt, our court reached a contrary result from that of the majority in Knowles.In Wyatt,the defendant agreed to plead guilty to charges of burglary and escape in exchange for the State...