People v. Guillen
23 N.E.3d 402
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- On April 11, 2013 Luis Guillen was arrested and charged with misdemeanor DUI and a traffic offense; his case proceeded in Du Page County (No. 13-DT-1311).
- At a June 27, 2013 plea hearing the defendant indicated he wished to plead guilty to misdemeanor DUI; the court engaged in admonishments and began discussing sentencing.
- During the same hearing the State discovered facts (high BAC and a prior DUI involving great bodily harm) that could support felony aggravated DUI and moved to nolle prosequi the misdemeanor counts to refile as felonies.
- The trial judge allowed the defendant to withdraw his plea, granted the State's motion to nolle prosequi, and the State later indicted Guillen for felony aggravated DUI (No. 13-CF-1421).
- Guillen moved to dismiss the felony indictment on double jeopardy grounds; the trial court granted dismissal, reasoning jeopardy had attached when the plea was accepted.
- The appellate court reversed, holding jeopardy had not attached because the trial court’s acceptance of the plea was preliminary and the State’s nol-pros was not improper; therefore prosecution on felony charges was permitted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jeopardy attached at the plea hearing before the State nol-prossed misdemeanor counts | Jeopardy had not attached because the trial court never unconditionally accepted the guilty plea and could withdraw acceptance before final judgment | Jeopardy attached when the court accepted the plea and began sentencing; subsequent felony indictment is barred | Court: Jeopardy did not attach—acceptance was preliminary and the court properly vacated the plea; felony prosecution allowed |
| Whether the State’s mid-hearing nolle prosequi terminated jeopardy improperly | The State’s motion was prompted by discovery of facts making the offense enhanceable to a felony, not prosecutorial overreaching | The nol-pros was an attempt to obtain a harsher disposition after plea acceptance, constituting improper termination | Court: The nol-pros was not improper; trial court may terminate the plea and vacate it when the State’s motion is not for an improper purpose |
| Whether acceptance of a plea requires completion of Rule 402 formalities before jeopardy attaches | Rule 402 formalities had not been completed; acceptance was not final so jeopardy did not attach | Even if some colloquy parts were missing, the court’s admonishments and sentencing colloquy show the plea was accepted | Court: Absence of completed, unconditional acceptance (including unresolved factual/minimum-sentence issues) supports that jeopardy had not attached |
| Whether double jeopardy policy (finality and prevention of prosecutorial overreaching) precludes refiling after plea withdrawal | Finality concerns are limited where plea acceptance was not final; no evidence of prosecutorial overreaching here | Defendant’s interest in finality and protection from successive prosecutions require dismissal | Court: Policies do not bar refiling where the plea was not unconditionally accepted and the State acted to correct charging error |
Key Cases Cited
- McCutcheon v. People, 68 Ill.2d 101 (Ill. 1977) (jeopardy attaches when a guilty plea is accepted by the court; plea vacated on appeal permits reinstatement of greater charge)
- Jackson v. People, 118 Ill.2d 179 (Ill. 1987) (plea admonishment, persistence, and court acceptance support finding that jeopardy attached prior to sentencing)
- Bellmyer v. People, 199 Ill.2d 529 (Ill. 2002) (reiterates that jeopardy attaches upon court acceptance of a guilty plea)
- McIntosh v. United States, 580 F.3d 1222 (11th Cir. 2009) (jeopardy attaches only upon unconditional acceptance of a plea; court may withdraw before final acceptance)
- Santiago Soto v. United States, 825 F.2d 616 (1st Cir. 1987) (no meaningful jeopardy where court preliminarily accepted but later rejected plea during same hearing)
- State v. Thomas, 995 A.2d 65 (Conn. 2010) (analyzes attachment of jeopardy at plea acceptance in light of finality and prosecutorial overreaching; holds jeopardy may not attach where acceptance is conditional)
- State v. Angel, 51 P.3d 1155 (N.M. 2002) (jeopardy does not attach until sentencing/final judgment; plea acceptance without final judgment does not bar refiling)
- People v. Cabrera, 402 Ill. App.3d 440 (Ill. App. Ct.) (midhearing vacatur of plea does not improperly terminate jeopardy where court acted to correct plea proceedings)