People v. Wills

• Decision Date: 09 November 1993
• Docket Number: No. 5-92-0313,5-92-0313
• Citation: 251 Ill.App.3d 640,622 N.E.2d 1271
• Parties: , 190 Ill.Dec. 954 The PEOPLE of The State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven G. WILLS, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 1271

622 N.E.2d 1271

251 Ill.App.3d 640, 190 Ill.Dec. 954

The PEOPLE of The State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven G. WILLS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 5-92-0313.

Appellate Court of Illinois Fifth District.

Nov. 9, 1993.

Brocton Lockwood, P.C., Marion, for defendant-appellant.

Gene Gross, State's Atty., Pinckneyville, Norbert J. Goetten, Director, Stephen E. Norris, Deputy Director, Gerry R. Arnold, Staff Atty., Office of State's Attys. Appellate Prosecutor, Mt. Vernon, for plaintiff-appellee.

Justice GOLDENHERSH delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendant, Steven G. Wills, appeals from the denial of his motion to modify sentence, entered in the circuit court of Perry County. In this cause, defendant raises three issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences when defendant was not admonished that the sentences could be consecutive, (2) whether the trial court erred in imposing more than two consecutive sentences, and (3) whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the maximum sentence allowable. We vacate and remand with directions.

Originally, defendant was charged in two separate cases with numerous counts of theft over $300 and several counts of forgery involving multiple victims. The crimes occurred in 1986 when defendant worked as an investigator for two personal injury attorneys. Defendant admitted that he participated in a scheme to induce personal injury clients to invest proceeds of their settlements. Instead of investing the money as arranged, defendant used the money for himself. When the clients sought return of their money, the attorney who employed defendant denied any knowledge that the money had not been properly invested and blamed defendant for the resulting losses. Defendant, on the other hand, admitted to wrongdoing but insisted that his employer was a coconspirator.

Prior to being arrested on the instant charges, defendant was charged and sentenced on a Federal offense. In the summer of 1991, defendant was serving time on the Federal offense and was returned to Illinois to face the instant charges. The State negotiated with defendant, and on January 2, 1992, defendant pleaded guilty to four counts of theft over $300. Three separate victims were involved. The plea was a partially negotiated disposition in which the question of defendant's incarceration was left open. Defendant agreed to pay a total of $10,000 in restitution to the victims, but the plea agreement left open the question of whether any additional fines or penalties should be assessed. At the time the negotiated plea was entered, counsel for defendant advised the court that defendant was changing his position in reliance upon the agreement prior to sentence. Defense counsel specifically stated:

"Just for the record, what this envisions is that this will allow the defendant to go ahead in reliance of this agreement, actually in effect change his position by agreeing to give statements to the various people who are investigating the [attorneys]. And as the State's Attorney has indicated the amount of restitution has been agreed to by the victims in this case."

A review of the record in this case shows that defendant cooperated with authorities to make a case against the attorneys for whom he worked. The victims involved requested leniency for this defendant so that he would cooperate in the investigation against his former employers.

Defendant was admonished by the court about possible sentences. Defendant was told that he could receive two to five years' imprisonment on each count. He was also advised with regard to an extended-term sentence. At no time was he admonished that he could be sentenced to consecutive sentences on these four counts. Ultimately, the trial court imposed four five-year consecutive prison sentences, which were also to run consecutively to defendant's Federal sentence. Defendant was fined $10,000 on each charge and ordered to pay $10,000 in restitution. Defendant was denied credit for time served in the Perry County jail while awaiting disposition of the instant charges.

Defendant filed a motion to modify his sentence, asking that the sentences run concurrently so as to conform to the admonishments of the trial court. Defendant also filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which was later withdrawn. The trial court denied defendant's motion but offered to allow defendant to withdraw his guilty plea. Defendant rejected this offer and argued that the sentence be reduced in accordance with the admonitions. The trial court refused and this appeal followed.

The first issue we are asked to consider is whether the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences when defendant was not admonished that the sentences could be consecutive. Defendant contends that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences when defendant was not advised that consecutive sentences were a possibility. Defendant contends that in order to rectify the situation the sentences must be ordered to run concurrently because defendant changed his position in reliance on acceptance of the plea. Defendant cooperated with authorities in the investigation of the attorneys who employed him, which implicated not only the attorneys but also himself. Defendant also assisted the victims in their civil case against the attorneys. Under these circumstances, defendant contends there is no way that he can be placed in the position he was before the plea was accepted and, thus, the sentences must run concurrently. The State's reply is that defendant has waived his right to relief. According to the State, defendant had only two options after pleading guilty and being sentenced. First, defendant could have filed a motion to withdraw the guilty plea based on its involuntary nature due to insufficient admonishments, or second, defendant could have filed a motion to modify seeking a reduction of the sentences. The State contends that defendant is not entitled to intermix the remedies because he should not be able to retain the benefits of his guilty plea, including the dismissal of numerous other charges, while also obtaining a substantial reduction in the length of his sentences. Moreover, the State contends that vacating the guilty plea is an adequate remedy because defendant has the ability to protect himself against any prejudice which might otherwise result from his making incriminating statements in reliance on a plea agreement. For example, defendant could file motions in limine to preclude use of those statements based upon their lack of voluntariness.

Supreme Court Rule 402 provides that before accepting a guilty plea a defendant must be admonished as to "the minimum and maximum sentence prescribed by law, including, when applicable, the penalty to which the defendant may be subjected because of prior convictions or consecutive sentences." (134 Ill.2d R. 402(a)(2).) A court's failure to substantially comply with this dictate renders a defendant's guilty plea involuntary. (People v. Akers (1985), 137 Ill.App.3d 922, 926-27, 92 Ill.Dec. 305, 308, 484 N.E.2d 1160, 1163; People v. Lundeen (1977), 55 Ill.App.3d 799, 13 Ill.Dec. 612, 371 N.E.2d 329.) Where a defendant is not admonished prior to a guilty plea that consecutive sentences might be imposed, consecutive sentences cannot be imposed. (People v. Lundeen (1977), 55 Ill.App.3d 799, 13 Ill.Dec. 612, 371 N.E.2d 329; People v. Willingham (1976), 38 Ill.App.3d 612, 349 N.E.2d 120; People v. Flannigan (1971), 131 Ill.App.2d 1059, 267 N.E.2d 739.) In this regard the Flannigan court specifically stated:

"Where a defendant is charged with more than one crime, the manner in which he may have to serve the sentences imposed for those crimes, whether consecutively or concurrently, is obviously a consequence of his plea, and must be considered as crucial to his decision as the admonition on the maximum penalty for each of the charges. * * *

* * * * * *

* * * The validity of defendant's guilty plea must be reviewed in the posture in which that plea was entered and defendant is entitled to enter his plea with full knowledge of the possible consequences of that plea as they exist at that time." (Flannigan, 131 Ill.App.2d at 1064-65, 267 N.E.2d at 744.)

Basically, a court's failure to state the penalty to which a defendant may be subjected because of consecutive sentences renders a defendant's plea involuntary. (People v. Butler (1989), 186 Ill.App.3d 510, 133 Ill.Dec. 334, 541 N.E.2d 171.) Whether reversal is required depends on whether real justice has been denied or whether defendant has been prejudiced by the inadequate admonishment. People v. Davis (1991), 145 Ill.2d 240, 164 Ill.Dec. 151, 582 N.E.2d 714.

In People v. McCracken (1992), 237 Ill.App.3d 519, 178 Ill.Dec. 581, 604 N.E.2d 1104, the defendant, who was charged with a Class 4 driving under the influence (DUI) because he had three or more prior DUI violations (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-501(d)(1); Ill.Rev.Stat. 1989, ch. 95 1/2, par. 6-303(d)), was never informed that there was a possibility that the sentence then in issue would be consecutive to a three-year prison sentence for a DUI conviction in another county. The McCracken court found that since the trial court's admonishments left the defendant believing that his sentences would not be consecutive, the defendant's guilty plea must be remanded to allow him to plead anew. (McCracken, 237 Ill.App.3d at 521-22, 178 Ill.Dec. at 583, 604 N.E.2d at 1106.) The problem in the instant case is that defendant has relied to his detriment on the admonishments of the trial court. Vacating the sentences and allowing defendant to plead anew will not correct the situation here.

The trial court did not admonish as to the possibility of consecutive sentences. Relying on the admonishments of the trial court, defendant then gave statements to authorities implicating himself and his former employees. Defe...