People v. Burge, 2021 IL 125642

Defendant Chaleah Burge, a certified nursing assistant, was charged with misdemeanor theft for taking $280 from a home‑health client.
At arraignment the court accepted a plea of not guilty, appointed counsel, and set pretrial dates; defendant later entered a fully negotiated guilty plea on March 20, 2017, after admonishment under Ill. S. Ct. R. 402.
The trial court accepted the plea and sentenced Burge to 12 months’ conditional discharge.
Ten days later Burge moved to withdraw her plea, arguing the court failed to give the collateral‑consequence admonishments required by 725 ILCS 5/113‑4(c) (which include possible impacts on employment) and that she subsequently lost her job.
The trial court denied the motion; the appellate court affirmed. The Illinois Supreme Court granted leave and affirmed, holding section 113‑4(c) applies only to pleas at arraignment and that Burge failed to show manifest injustice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Burge)	Held
Whether 725 ILCS 5/113‑4(c) admonishment requirement applies to guilty pleas entered after arraignment	Section 113‑4 is an arraignment statute; the State argued subsection (c) applies only at arraignment and not to subsequent plea hearings	113‑4(c) contains no temporal limitation and its plain language requires admonishments whenever a defendant pleads guilty, not just at arraignment	The Court held 113‑4(c) applies only to pleas at arraignment unless the statute expressly says otherwise; courts should read §113‑4 as a cohesive arraignment provision
Whether failure to give §113‑4(c) admonishments (and ensuing job loss) warrants vacatur of plea for manifest injustice	Even if §113‑4(c) applied, collateral consequences do not automatically render a plea involuntary; Burge failed to show reasonable misapprehension or prejudice	Lack of §113‑4(c) admonition prevented a knowing, voluntary plea because she was not told pleading guilty could cost her job and she lost employment afterward	The Court held Burge did not meet the objective standard for manifest injustice: loss of employment is a collateral consequence, §113‑4(c) only warns that employment "may" be affected, and defense counsel—not the court after arraignment—is charged with advising specific collateral consequences; trial court did not abuse its discretion

People v. Fuller, 205 Ill. 2d 308 (2002) (substantial compliance with Rule 402 satisfies due process for plea admonishments)
People v. Jamison, 197 Ill. 2d 135 (2001) (denial of withdrawal upheld where defendant was fully admonished under Rule 402)
People v. Garner, 147 Ill. 2d 467 (1992) (section 113‑4(e) in‑absentia warnings tied to arraignment and may be given later)
People v. Phillips, 242 Ill. 2d 189 (2011) (section 113‑4(e) applies at arraignment or any later court date when defendant is present)
People v. Delvillar, 235 Ill. 2d 507 (2009) (standard for withdrawing guilty plea: defendant must show manifest injustice)
People v. Correa, 108 Ill. 2d 541 (1985) (it is counsel’s responsibility, not the court’s, to advise defendant of collateral consequences of a plea)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (defense counsel has duty to advise about certain collateral consequences, e.g., deportation)
People v. Hughes, 2012 IL 112817 (2012) (collateral consequences generally not required for a knowing plea but inadequate admonishment can warrant reversal if defendant shows prejudice)