Background

• Octavius Johnson pleaded guilty via a negotiated plea to two counts of delivery of a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a church (Class 1 felonies) with a sentencing range of 4–15 years; the State agreed to dismiss remaining charges (including a Class X count) and to recommend a 13-year cap.
• The trial court accepted the plea, received Rule 402 admonishments and factual basis, and later imposed concurrent 11-year terms (within the 4–13-year cap) after noting both mitigation and aggravating factors.
• At sentencing the court cited statutory aggravating factors including that the conduct threatened serious harm and that Johnson received compensation for selling drugs; Johnson was aware the sentence could be up to 13 years.
• Johnson moved to withdraw his plea in the trial court (denied) and later, on appeal, argued for the first time that the court relied on improper statutory aggravators inherent in the offense and sought plain-error review without withdrawing the plea.
• The appellate court allowed the claim, found reversible error and remanded for resentencing; the State appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court.
• The Illinois Supreme Court held that Rule 604(d) bars a defendant who entered a negotiated plea from challenging a sentence that is within the agreed cap on the ground the court relied on improper statutory sentencing factors; the proper route is to move to withdraw the plea and vacate the judgment.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• People v. Evans, 174 Ill. 2d 320 (1996) (negotiated pleas require withdrawal to challenge sentence; plea and sentence are part of the bargain)
• People v. Linder, 186 Ill. 2d 67 (1999) (agreement to a recommended sentencing cap bars later sentence-reconsideration without plea withdrawal)
• People v. Lumzy, 191 Ill. 2d 182 (2000) (where plea is silent as to sentencing, no withdrawal required to challenge sentence)
• People v. Diaz, 192 Ill. 2d 211 (2000) (reaffirmed that sentencing concessions make the sentence part of the bargain; errors at sentencing require plea withdrawal)
• People v. Williams, 179 Ill. 2d 331 (1997) (exception for sentences that are unauthorized by statute)
• People v. Wilson, 181 Ill. 2d 409 (1998) (same: void or unauthorized sentences may be challenged despite a plea)
• People v. Guevara, 216 Ill. 2d 533 (2005) (Rule 604(d) does not bar claims that the sentencing statute is facially unconstitutional)
• People v. Phelps, 211 Ill. 2d 1 (2004) (prohibition on "double enhancement"—courts may not use offense elements as aggravators)
• People v. Saldivar, 113 Ill. 2d 256 (1986) (an excessive sentence claim can be grounded on reliance on an aggravating factor that is a material element of the offense)
• People v. Heider, 231 Ill. 2d 1 (2008) (distinguishable: defendant received a sentence more severe than recommended; Rule 604(d) not considered)
• People v. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916 (2015) (abolished the older "void-sentence" rule relied on in some prior cases)