People v. Maxey
49 N.E.3d 507
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- Maxey was indicted for attempted aggravated robbery; the trial court granted his motion to quash and suppress in 2009, and the State filed a certificate of substantial impairment and appealed.
- While the State's appeal was pending, the trial court set a $10,000 I‑bond (recognizance bond) for Maxey in November 2009.
- Maxey was later arrested and convicted in a separate case (11 CR 07414‑01); those convictions resulted in sentences ordered consecutive to the 11‑year sentence he accepted in the case at bar.
- In January 2013 Maxey pleaded guilty in the instant case (08 CR 20482) to receive an 11‑year sentence; he then moved to vacate the prior bond order and later sought to withdraw his guilty plea.
- The trial court denied the motion to vacate the bond, denied withdrawal of plea, but corrected the mittimus to award 1,045 days' credit. This appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Maxey's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2009 I‑bond was void and may be vacated now | Maxey failed to use Rule 604(c) pre‑conviction appeal procedure; untimely and not reviewable now | The I‑bond violated Rule 604(a)(3) (no bail during State appeal) and is void and attackable at any time | Court: Jurisdiction exists but Maxey's claim is untimely under Rule 604; no good reason to excuse lateness; claim fails |
| Whether Maxey should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea due to misunderstanding about appealability of bond | Plea was knowing and voluntary; no objective basis for mistaken belief | Plea induced by misunderstanding that pleading would not bar later challenge to bond | Court: Denies withdrawal — record shows Maxey knowingly asked and elected to plead; no manifest injustice shown |
| Whether mittimus should reflect days' credit and whether State may seek reduction | State argued lower credit (951 days) | Maxey sought correction to 1,045 days as orally pronounced | Court: Corrects mittimus to 1,045 days; State cannot effectively cross‑appeal sentencing credit under Rule 604 |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Beaty, 351 Ill. App. 3d 717 (Ill. App. Ct.) (distinguishing appealability of bail orders when unconditional release denied)
- People v. Bailey, 167 Ill. 2d 210 (Ill. 1995) (court may reach untimely bail issues in limited circumstances to serve public interest)
- People v. Castleberry, 2015 IL 116916 (Ill.) (State may not appeal sentencing orders; appellee cannot mount de facto cross‑appeal to lessen defendant's rights)
- People v. Thompson, 2015 IL 118151 (Ill.) (discusses and abolishes the old "void sentence" rule)
- People v. Carlisle, 2015 IL App (1st) 131144 (Ill. App. Ct.) (oral pronouncement controls when inconsistent with written mittimus)