People v. Maggos
2022 IL App (3d) 190324-U
Ill. App. Ct.2022Background
- Matthew Maggos was convicted after a bench trial of aggravated domestic battery and sentenced March 26, 2019 to 30 months’ probation with conditions including immediate reporting to the Peoria Teen Challenge program and payment of a public defender fee.
- Maggos was released March 27, 2019 but did not report to the program; the State filed a petition to revoke probation on March 28, 2019.
- At an initial revocation hearing Maggos requested appointed counsel and was represented at the subsequent probation-revocation proceeding.
- On May 22, 2019 Maggos admitted the petition to revoke; the court asked several questions, described the possible sentencing range for the underlying Class 2 felony, and accepted the admission.
- The court did not admonish Maggos that the State must prove the alleged probation violation by a preponderance of the evidence, a specific requirement of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 402A(a). The court revoked probation and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment.
- The appellate court vacated the judgment and remanded, holding the circuit court failed to substantially comply with Rule 402A and directing the court to re-admonish, allow withdrawal of the admission, and proceed accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court substantially complied with Ill. S. Ct. Rule 402A(a) before accepting an admission to a petition to revoke probation | The State argued the issue was forfeited and that Maggos was aware the State bore the burden of proof, so no reversible error | Maggos argued the court failed to give the Rule 402A(a) admonitions, most critically that the State must prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence | The court held the issue is not forfeited and that the court did not substantially comply with Rule 402A(a); vacated and remanded with directions |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Whitfield, 217 Ill. 2d 177 (2005) (due-process admonishment requirements and limits on placing the onus on defendant)
- In re Westley A.F., 399 Ill. App. 3d 791 (2010) (rejecting forfeiture where defendant cannot ensure required admonishments)
- People v. Ellis, 375 Ill. App. 3d 1041 (2007) (substantial compliance requires an affirmative showing in the record that defendant understood each required admonition)