People v. Ferral-Mujica
2017 IL App (2d) 160240
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Defendant Armando Ferral-Mujica pled guilty to one count of aggravated battery (Class X) after a Rule 402 conference; remaining charges were dismissed. The plea was presented as a "blind plea."
- The crime involved a group assault where the victim was struck with a machete and shot in the chest; defendant’s ID was found at the scene. The statutory sentencing range was 6–30 years with an 85% firearm-related mandate and three years mandatory supervised release.
- Defense counsel (Hofmann) later told defendant the judge at the Rule 402 conference had recommended an 8–12 year sentence; defendant said he relied on that when pleading guilty.
- At sentencing the court imposed 16 years. Defendant filed postplea motions to withdraw the plea and to reconsider the sentence, arguing he pled under a mistaken belief that the court had promised an 8–12 year cap.
- At the motion hearing, Hofmann testified the judge had recommended 8–12 years; the prosecutor and record showed no such agreement and the court’s Rule 402 admonitions told defendant there were no agreements and that sentencing was left to the court.
- The trial court denied the motions; the appellate court affirmed, finding the Rule 402 colloquy and record rebutted any objectively reasonable claim of a sentencing agreement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant may withdraw his guilty plea based on belief the court promised an 8–12 year sentence at the Rule 402 conference | The State argued the record (Rule 402 admonitions and lack of on-record agreement) shows no promise; denial of withdrawal was proper | Defendant argued he reasonably relied on counsel’s representation that the judge recommended 8–12 years and would not have pled otherwise | Court held denial proper: no objective proof of an agreement; defendant was properly admonished and plea was voluntary |
| Whether sentence should be reduced to 12 years because of alleged Rule 402 recommendation | State argued sentence within range and supported by aggravating facts; no agreement limited sentence | Defendant sought reduction to the 8–12 years he believed was recommended | Court held 16-year sentence appropriate given brutality; no basis to impose 12 years |
| Whether defense counsel’s post-conference assurances overcome the court’s on-record admonitions | State argued counsel’s after-the-fact assertions cannot override express court admonitions | Defendant argued counsel’s statements justified withdrawal or enforcement of assumed recommendation | Court held defendant cannot ignore explicit court admonitions; subjective impressions insufficient without substantial objective proof |
| Whether procedural remand/failure to record Rule 402 recommendation requires relief | State noted absence of any on-record recommendation; best practice is to place any Rule 402 recommendations on record | Defendant argued the conference result should have been reflected and enforced | Court affirmed that absent an on-record agreement, no relief; admonitions control |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Radunz, 180 Ill. App. 3d 734 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989) (defendant cannot ignore the court’s explicit admonitions to later claim involuntariness)
- People v. Allen, 323 Ill. App. 3d 312 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001) (burden on defendant to show necessity of withdrawing plea)
- People v. Hillenbrand, 121 Ill. 2d 537 (Ill. 1988) (leave to withdraw plea granted only to correct manifest injustice)
- People v. Davis, 145 Ill. 2d 240 (Ill. 1991) (standards for when plea withdrawal is warranted)
- People v. Hale, 82 Ill. 2d 172 (Ill. 1980) (subjective impressions insufficient without substantial objective proof)
- People v. Lumzy, 191 Ill. 2d 182 (Ill. 2000) (definition and effect of a blind plea)
- People v. Horton, 250 Ill. App. 3d 944 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993) (purpose of Rule 402 colloquy to ensure plea is intelligent and voluntary)
- People v. Robinson, 157 Ill. App. 3d 622 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987) (extensive admonitions undermine later claims of involuntariness)
- People v. Krantz, 58 Ill. 2d 187 (Ill. 1974) (Rule 402 designed to ensure properly entered pleas, not ritualistic compliance)
- People v. Ramirez, 162 Ill. 2d 235 (Ill. 1994) (admonitions cannot be disregarded as mere formality)
- People v. Kane, 404 Ill. App. 3d 132 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010) (same abuse-of-discretion standard applies to sentence reconsideration)
- People v. Nicholls, 71 Ill. 2d 166 (Ill. 1978) (costs on appeal may be assessed)