People v. Cortez, 975 N.E.2d 107

In 1998 Cortez was serving a 35-year sentence for a prior conviction (92 CR 8378).
Cortez and another inmate assaulted a peace officer, leading to an aggravated battery charge.
At a 1999 hearing, Cortez pled guilty under a plea agreement promising two years IDOC with 353 days of credit actually served, to run consecutively to his 35-year sentence.
Mittimus credited Cortez with 353 days, though the sentence was to run consecutively to the prior conviction.
Cortez did not move to withdraw the plea or appeal at that time.
In 2010 Cortez filed a pro se 2-1401(f) petition seeking enforcement of the plea bargain, asserting the agreed sentence was impermissible.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the negotiated sentence is void due to impermissible custody credit	Cortez argues the 353 days credit violated Latona and White, making the plea agreement illegal.	People contend the sentence was within statutory norms or non-void, and any error does not void the entire plea.	The sentence is void; the plea agreement is void and remand for withdrawal and trial is warranted.
Whether White announces a new rule and retroactivity on collateral review	White provides a rule that a sentence not authorized by statute is void and applies here.	State contends White is a new rule with no retroactive application on collateral review.	White is applicable and retroactive for void sentences on collateral review.
Appropriate remedy when a void plea is found	Remand for withdrawal of the plea and trial if desired by defendant.	Remand for resentencing or other remedies should be considered.	Remand with directions to allow withdrawal of the guilty plea and proceed to trial if the defendant so chooses.

People v. Latona, 184 Ill. 2d 260 (Ill. 1998) (credit awarded for multiple sentences must be counted once)
People v. White, 2011 IL 109616 (Ill. 2011) (void sentence when not authorized by statute; affects plea)
People v. Avery, 2012 IL App (1st) 110298 (Ill. App. 1st 2012) (addresses new-rule/retroactivity distinctions post-White)
People v. Donelson, 2011 IL App (1st) 092594 (Ill. App. 1st 2011) (void-plea contract analysis for essential terms)
People v. Smith, 406 Ill. App. 3d 879 (Ill. App. 1st 2010) (plea agreements governed by contract law; withdrawal burden)
People v. Gregory, 379 Ill. App. 3d 414 (Ill. App. 1st 2008) (essential-term analysis in plea agreements)
People v. McNett, 361 Ill. App. 3d 444 (Ill. App. 1st 2005) (minor sentencing corrections do not void entire plea)
People v. Hart v. Roe, 201 Ill. 2d 552 (Ill. 2002) (equitable remedy on collateral review when void)
People v. Whitfield, 217 Ill. 2d 177 (Ill. 2005) (plea validity due process considerations; not applicable here as void)
People v. Arna, 168 Ill. 2d 107 (Ill. 1995) (void-judgment principles foundational)