People v. Johnson
180 N.E.3d 825
Ill. App. Ct.2021Background
- In June 2017 Johnson was arrested for domestic battery (17-CF-1598) and released on bond; three days after release he committed a second domestic battery (17-CF-2030).
- Johnson pleaded guilty in 17-CF-1598 (30 months’ probation) and, one month later, pleaded guilty in 17-CF-2030 (30 months’ probation to run concurrently). At the second plea the court did not advise him he faced mandatory consecutive sentences for committing a felony while on pretrial release.
- The State later moved to revoke probation in both cases; the court granted the petitions and, at resentencing, imposed consecutive five-year prison terms in each case (aggregate 10 years).
- At sentencing the court and parties recognized mandatory consecutive sentencing applied because the second offense occurred while Johnson was on bond; defense counsel had not realized that at the pleas and made no contemporaneous objection at sentencing.
- Johnson did not move to reconsider the sentence; he appealed, arguing the court’s failure to admonish about mandatory consecutive sentencing under Ill. S. Ct. R. 402 invalidated imposition of consecutive terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandatory consecutive sentences could be imposed when the defendant was not admonished at plea that consecutive sentences were mandatory | The State agreed consecutive sentences were legally mandatory and urged remand to allow plea withdrawal or new plea; dismissed charges could be reinstated | Johnson argued plain error: trial court failed to admonish under Rule 402 that consecutive sentences were mandatory, so consecutive sentencing at revocation was improper | Vacated the consecutive five-year terms and remanded for resentencing; because the pleas were entered without the required admonition, resentencing is limited to the maximum penalty the defendant was originally admonished to face and sentences must be concurrent; dismissed charges cannot be reinstated |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Guzman, 2015 IL 118749 (de novo review standard for plea-admonishment claims)
- People v. Walsh, 2016 IL App (2d) 140357 (plain-error and preservation framework for sentencing claims)
- People v. McCracken, 237 Ill. App. 3d 519 (trial court must admonish defendant about consecutive sentences under Rule 402)
- People v. Butler, 186 Ill. App. 3d 510 (discusses court awareness of possibility of consecutive sentences when accepting plea)
- People v. Taylor, 368 Ill. App. 3d 703 (failure to admonish about sentencing consequence undermines assumption defendant knew penalty; remedy limitations after probation revocation)
- People v. Johns, 229 Ill. App. 3d 740 (after probation revocation, resentencing is limited by the maximum penalty originally admonished)
- People v. Wills, 251 Ill. App. 3d 640 (when court failed to admonish about consecutive sentences, only concurrent sentences could be imposed)