People v. Grant
2015 IL App (4th) 140971
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- Nathan B. Grant pled guilty on December 16, 2013 in Vermilion County to possession of cocaine under a fully negotiated plea: 2 years’ imprisonment, credit for 384 days served, and dismissal of a cannabis charge; sentence to run consecutively to an earlier Douglas County sentence.
- Grant had a prior Douglas County conviction (aggravated battery) with a 3 years 3 months sentence and 268 days of presentence credit; he completed that sentence but remained in DOC on mandatory supervised release due to lack of housing.
- At the plea hearing the court repeatedly reviewed the agreement; the State and defense advised the sentence would be consecutive to the Douglas County sentence. Grant expressed confusion about how consecutive sentencing would affect credit but was told the plea required consecutiveness. After a recess, Grant confirmed he accepted the plea knowing it was consecutive.
- The court accepted the plea, sentenced Grant to 2 years consecutive to the Douglas County sentence, 1 year MSR, and awarded 384 days’ credit on the Vermilion County judgment; DOC ultimately applied only 16 days’ actual credit against the Vermilion sentence.
- Grant filed a pro se postconviction petition claiming he did not receive the benefit of the bargain because he did not obtain the full 384 days of credit (asserting he should get double credit), and sought a reduction of his sentence; the trial court summarily dismissed the petition as frivolous and patently without merit.
- On appeal the Fourth District affirmed, holding Grant knew the consequences of consecutive sentencing, voluntarily accepted the plea, and cannot unilaterally modify the negotiated agreement to obtain double credit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Grant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Grant was denied the benefit of his negotiated plea (due process) because he did not receive the full 384 days’ credit he expected | The plea expressly required consecutive sentencing; Grant was informed and persisted, so he received the benefit of the bargain and cannot later demand different credit | Grant says the plea promise included 384 days’ credit and DOC’s failure to apply double credit deprived him of the bargain and violated due process | Affirmed: Court held Grant knew consecutive sentencing would prevent double credit, voluntarily accepted the plea, and is not entitled to unilaterally modify the agreed sentence or additional credit |
Key Cases Cited
- Latona v. People, 184 Ill. 2d 260 (1998) (an offender incarcerated for multiple offenses receives credit once for days actually served)
- Whitfield v. People, 217 Ill. 2d 177 (2005) (a guilty plea is invalid if defendant did not receive the agreed benefit; promises forming plea inducement must be fulfilled)
- McDermott v. People, 12 N.E.3d 148 (Ill. App. 2014) (defendant entitled to specified sentence credit where record showed credit was an essential bargained-for term and defendant was not informed otherwise)
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) (prosecutorial promises that induce a plea must be honored)
- Absher v. People, 950 N.E.2d 659 (Ill. 2011) (fully negotiated pleas are governed by contract principles and both sides are bound)
- Evans v. People, 673 N.E.2d 244 (Ill. 1996) (neither party may unilaterally modify a negotiated plea; parties should not be allowed to renege due to mistake or change of mind)