2020 IL App (4th) 180428-U
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- Sarah Knade pleaded guilty in two consolidated Livingston County cases under an agreement in which the State capped its sentencing recommendation at 18 years.
- The trial court sentenced her to consecutive terms of 6 years and 10 years (total 16 years), within the 18-year cap.
- At sentencing the court admonished Knade about appeal rights using language that told her to file, within 30 days, a motion to "reconsider the sentence or to have the judgment vacated and for leave to withdraw your plea" (language matching Rule 605(b)).
- Knade timely filed a motion to reconsider her sentence; the court denied it and she appealed claiming the sentence was excessive.
- The State argued the court misadvised Knade because, under a negotiated plea with a sentencing cap, Rule 605(c) (and Rule 604(d)) require admonishments directing a defendant to file a motion to withdraw the plea to challenge the sentence.
- The appellate court agreed the court used the wrong admonition (605(b) language instead of 605(c)), concluded Knade was misled and remanded for strict compliance with Rule 605(c) and to allow her 30 days to file a motion to withdraw her plea; it did not reach the excessiveness claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a defendant who entered a negotiated guilty plea (with a sentencing cap) may challenge her sentence on appeal without first moving to withdraw the plea | State: Under Rule 604(d) a negotiated plea that includes a sentencing cap requires the defendant to first move to withdraw the plea before challenging the sentence | Knade: She treated the pleas as blind and urged the court to reach the merits of her excessive-sentence claim | Court: Plea was negotiated (18-year cap); under Linder/Evans a defendant must move to withdraw the plea before challenging sentence; challenge without that motion is improper |
| Whether the trial court gave proper Rule 605 admonishments at sentencing | State: The court admonished using Rule 605(b) language (for non‑negotiated pleas), which misled Knade into filing a motion to reconsider rather than a motion to withdraw the plea required for negotiated pleas | Knade: Argued the admonitions were sufficient and asked the court to consider her sentence claim on the merits | Court: The admonition was incorrect/substantially misleading (used 605(b) not 605(c)); remanded for strict compliance with Rule 605(c) and to permit Knade 30 days to file a motion to withdraw her plea |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Linder, 708 N.E.2d 1169 (Ill. 1999) (negotiated pleas require withdrawal motion before challenging sentence)
- People v. Evans, 673 N.E.2d 244 (Ill. 1996) (same principle: preserve plea bargaining status quo by requiring withdrawal motion)
- People v. Dominguez, 976 N.E.2d 983 (Ill. 2012) (Rule 605 admonitions must be given and substantially comply with requirements)
- People v. Flowers, 802 N.E.2d 1174 (Ill. 2003) (failure to give Rule 605 admonitions requires remand for strict compliance)
- People v. Young, 903 N.E.2d 434 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009) (incorrect admonition using 605(b) rather than 605(c) can mislead defendant and warrants remand)
- People v. Catron, 674 N.E.2d 141 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996) (agreeing that a sentence within an agreed range is not subject to excessiveness challenge without plea withdrawal)