People v. Donelson, 2013 IL 113603

Defendant Charles Donelson pled guilty to first degree murder, home invasion, and aggravated criminal sexual assault under a fully negotiated plea.
The terms called for 55, 30, and 30 year sentences to be served concurrently.
On remand after error regarding plea admonishments, the State and defendant agreed to reduce the murder sentence from 55 to 50 years, leaving the other two 30-year terms unchanged.
Defendant later pursued successive motions to reduce or vacate sentences; a 5-year reduction occurred, but further challenges followed without altering the 50-year murder term.
The appellate court held that concurrent sentencing rendered the plea void but could be reconfigured to implement the parties’ mutual intent within statutory limits, remanding for resentencing to total 50 years.
The State and defendant dispute whether the remedy should be withdrawal of the plea or contract reformation; the court ultimately adopts reformation to give effect to the bargain within statutory constraints.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Can mutual mistake in sentencing be corrected by contract reformation to effect the bargain?	People seeks reform to implement the agreed total term.	Donelson argues for withdrawal/remand rather than reformation.	Remand for resentencing via contract reformation.
Is withdrawal of the guilty plea the proper remedy (White) when concurrent sentencing was mistaken?	People contends reform preserves the bargain without retrial.	Donelson favors withdrawal and possible retrial.	Not required; reforming sentences implements the bargain.
May the sentencing scheme be reconfigured to satisfy statutory mandates and the plea agreement?	People asserts reform can align with statutes to total 50 years.	Donelson alleges the agreement cannot be fulfilled as reformation.	Yes; reformation can produce a total 50-year term within statute.

People v. Harris, 203 Ill. 2d 111 (2003) (mandatory consecutive sentences for multiple offenses)
People v. Thompson, 209 Ill. 2d 19 (2004) (void sentence not authorized by statute)
People v. Evans, 174 Ill. 2d 320 (1996) (plea bargaining contract-like; policy of enforcement)
People v. Boyt, 109 Ill. 2d 403 (1985) (benefits of plea bargaining; judicial economy)
People v. Hughes, 2012 IL 112817 (2012) (contract-like nature of plea agreements; fulfillment of promises)
People v. White, 2011 IL 109616 (2011) (remedy where admonishments and sentencing mandates conflict)
People v. Absher, 242 Ill. 2d 77 (2011) (contractual considerations in pleas)
Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) (promises in plea agreements must be fulfilled)
Czarobski v. Lata, 227 Ill. 2d 364 (2008) (mutual mistake rectified by contract reformation)
Wheeler-Dealer, Ltd. v. Christ, 379 Ill. App. 3d 864 (2008) (application of contract principles in pleadings)