People v. Glover
2017 IL App (4th) 160586
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- In Nov. 2012 Michael Glover was charged in Champaign County with multiple felonies (including two home-invasion counts) alleged to have occurred while he was on bond in Coles County; the State alleged Champaign sentences would run consecutively to Coles County sentences.
- In Dec. 2013 Glover pleaded guilty to one count: unlawful possession of a stolen vehicle (Class 2). He accepted a 9-year extended-term sentence (with credit) and dismissed the remaining Champaign charges.
- In Jan. 2014 Glover moved to withdraw his plea, later amended to allege (a) he was impaired by medication at the plea, (b) he believed (erroneously) he faced 60 years if convicted at trial because counsel and the court said two Class X home-invasion counts would run consecutively, and (c) plea counsel provided ineffective assistance by misadvising him about sentencing and defenses (including one-act/one-crime issues).
- The trial court held an evidentiary hearing in Aug. 2016 (witnesses included Glover and plea counsel); the court denied the motion to withdraw, implicitly crediting counsel’s testimony over Glover’s.
- On appeal Glover argued (1) he should be allowed to withdraw the plea because his belief he faced 60 years was objectively reasonable and arose from counsel and the court, and that counsel’s erroneous advice was ineffective assistance, and (2) several fines/assessments imposed by the clerk were improper.
- The appellate court affirmed denial of the motion to withdraw (no manifest abuse of discretion) and vacated most improperly assessed fines/fees (except a $2 State’s Attorney automation fee, which the court treated as a permissible fee).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Glover) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea withdrawal required for misapprehension of law about maximum exposure | Court and counsel’s admonitions were adequate for the conviction pleaded; the misstatement about two home-invasion counts did not prejudice plea to unrelated possession charge | Glover reasonably (objectively) believed he faced 60 years because the court and counsel said two Class X counts would run consecutively; that misapprehension vitiates voluntariness | Denied — misapprehension about dismissed counts did not render plea involuntary because Glover was properly admonished on the possession charge and showed no prejudice to plea validity |
| Whether plea counsel rendered ineffective assistance by advising Glover he faced 60 years, warranting plea withdrawal | Counsel’s testimony credited; no deficient performance shown and no reasonable probability Glover would have insisted on trial given overall exposure | Counsel misadvised him about enhanced exposure (60 yrs), and that misinformation was determinative of his plea decision | Denied — court credited counsel; under Strickland no deficient performance or prejudice shown; no reasonable probability Glover would have declined the 9-year plea |
| Effect of Lee v. United States on prejudice inquiry | Even after Lee, Glover cannot show he would have opted for trial because he faced numerous other charges and a 30-year exposure on the Class X count still made the 9-year plea attractive | Lee supports that a defendant may reasonably choose trial for non-prison-consequence reasons (e.g., deportation); here the erroneous 60-year figure could have been the determinative factor | Lee considered but distinguished — Lee does not automatically require relief; Glover failed to produce contemporaneous evidence showing he would have insisted on trial and his factual posture differed (actual exposure still very large) |
| Challenge to fines/assessments imposed by circuit clerk | Most assessments challenged were improperly imposed as fines and should be vacated; $2 State’s Attorney automation assessment is a legitimate fee | Many clerk-imposed assessments are fines and thus improper; challenge to $2 automation fee too | Vacated the improperly imposed fines except the $2 State’s Attorney automation fee (court followed prior precedent treating it as a fee) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Cole, 172 Ill.2d 85 (single entry supports only one home-invasion conviction)
- People v. Delvillar, 235 Ill.2d 507 (plea withdrawal requires showing manifest injustice; focus on whether plea was voluntarily and intelligently made)
- People v. Fuller, 205 Ill.2d 308 (whether imperfect admonishment denied real justice depends on prejudice)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance—deficiency and prejudice)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (prejudice standard for claims that counsel’s errors induced plea)
- Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (2017) (a defendant need not have a viable defense to show prejudice from counsel’s erroneous advice about consequences; contemporaneous evidence of decisionmaking is important)