People v. Armstrong
50 N.E.3d 745
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- In 2011 Armstrong was indicted for failing to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (730 ILCS 150/6 (West 2010)), based on a 1997 felony unlawful-restraint conviction. He pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement and received a 3-year prison term.
- The factual basis the State offered at the 2011 plea referenced the 1997 conviction and alleged the 1997 offense had the elements (victim under 18 and sexual component) triggering registration. Armstrong did not file a postjudgment motion at that time; his direct appeal was summarily remanded to allow one.
- Armstrong then proceeded pro se, filed a postjudgment motion raising ineffective-assistance claims, and argued trial counsel was deficient for permitting the guilty plea because the 1997 plea/factual basis did not establish a sex-offense predicate requiring registration. Specifically, the 1997 plea/factual-basis and judgment did not state the victim’s age or order registration.
- The trial record from 1997 shows a negotiated guilty plea to unlawful restraint with a factual basis that did not mention the victim’s age or any registration requirement; the written judgment did not order sex-offender registration.
- The appellate court concluded the 1997 conviction, as factually defined in the plea, did not trigger registration under the Act (as it required proof the victim was under 18 in 1997), so the 2011 prosecution for failure to register was legally baseless. The court reversed and remanded, finding counsel ineffective for failing to review the 1997 record and for allowing a plea to a charge that could not have been sustained at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Armstrong forfeited challenge to counsel’s effectiveness for failing to raise it in a Rule 604(d) postplea motion | State: Rule 604(d) forfeiture applies but plain-error review remains available | Armstrong: Issue is forfeited but asks for plain-error review because error produces baseless conviction | Court: Excused forfeiture and reviewed claim as plain error because allowing a baseless conviction would be a serious injustice |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for advising plea when the 1997 predicate did not establish a sex-offense triggering registration | State: The record in this case (registration form and later admissions) supplied evidence the victim was under 18; counsel reasonably negotiated a plea to avoid greater exposure | Armstrong: Counsel failed to examine the 1997 record; the 1997 factual basis/judgment lacked any finding the victim was under 18 or any registration order, so the predicate never triggered registration | Court: Counsel was ineffective. Reasonable counsel would have reviewed the 1997 record and realized the predicate did not require registration; Armstrong likely would have refused the plea and gone to trial |
| Whether post-1997 admissions/convictions cure the 1997 judgment’s deficiency as a predicate for registration | State: Subsequent registrations, admissions, and a 2005 failure-to-register conviction corroborate that Armstrong knew/was required to register | Armstrong: Post-judgment admissions do not retroactively add facts to the 1997 judgment or fix its legal insufficiency | Court: Subsequent conduct/admissions do not remedy the 1997 judgment’s omission of the age finding or registration order; they do not validate a baseless 2011 prosecution |
| Whether the trial court in 1997 was required to admonish about registration consequences | State: Registration is collateral; no mandatory admonition required | Armstrong: Not a central point of his claim but notes no admonition or order to register was made in 1997 | Court: Observes collateral-consequence admonition is not required, but the absence of any reference to registration in 1997 underscores that registration was not imposed then |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- People v. Rissley, 206 Ill. 2d 403 (2003) (ineffective-assistance standard applied to guilty pleas)
- People v. Fuller, 205 Ill. 2d 308 (2002) (Rule 604(d) forfeiture does not preclude plain-error review)
- People v. Johnson, 225 Ill. 2d 573 (2007) (amendments to registration statute not retroactive to benefit earlier offenders)
- People v. Strawbridge, 404 Ill. App. 3d 460 (2010) (plain-error review appropriate where enforcement of forfeiture risks serious injustice)
- People v. Black, 394 Ill. App. 3d 935 (2009) (same principle regarding nonretroactivity of statutory amendments)
- People v. Craig, 374 Ill. App. 3d 375 (2007) (statutory amendment to registration requirements not retroactive)