2020 IL App (5th) 170068
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- Early-morning traffic stop of Dallas McIntosh; K-9 alerted; as officer asked McIntosh to exit, he fired a handgun at Officer Stratman (wounding his hand via flashlight shrapnel), fired toward Officer Flinn, and then fled in his Camaro. Officers returned fire, pursued, and arrested McIntosh at his parents’ home.
- Search of the vehicle recovered two handguns, ~3.5 pounds of cannabis, a digital scale, and $10,000 cash; officer had prepared a warning ticket for a signal violation (not given to McIntosh at the scene).
- State indicted McIntosh on 10 counts (including two attempted murder counts). After fitness evaluations and an amended report indicating plea-eligibility as guilty but mentally ill, McIntosh entered a partially negotiated guilty-but-mentally-ill plea to 5 counts; the State dismissed the remaining counts.
- Parties agreed sentencing ranges and concurrent sentences; the court accepted the plea, later sentenced McIntosh (40 years on principal counts; concurrent), and the defense moved to withdraw the plea and to reconsider sentence.
- McIntosh’s motion alleged misapprehension of facts/law (basis for the stop, existence of warning ticket, counseling about Dr. Cuneo’s confidentiality, elements of “official duties”), ineffective assistance, and that subpoenaed witnesses failed to appear; the trial court denied the motion and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea withdrawal was warranted for misapprehension of the facts (reason for stop/signaling) | Defense counsel reviewed video with defendant; defendant knowingly abandoned suppression issues as trial strategy | Defendant said he was unaware he had signaled and was misled; would have pursued suppression/trial | Trial court credited counsel; no objectively reasonable misapprehension shown; denial affirmed |
| Whether an unconstitutional traffic stop would produce a meritorious suppression-based defense | Suppression would not remove evidence of the shooting or later seizure; violent reaction cannot be excused as fruit of poisonous tree | Stop illegality would suppress evidence and support withdrawal | Exclusionary rule does not permit suppression of evidence of the defendant’s violent reaction; suppression would not have defeated the State’s case; claim fails |
| Whether defendant misunderstood the element that officers acted “in performance of official duties” | Officers were on duty, in uniform, performing job tasks; official-duty element satisfied even if stop later deemed unconstitutional | Defendant argued he didn’t know this was an element and that unconstitutional stop meant officers weren’t performing duties | Court held “official duties” encompasses good-faith performance of job duties; constitutionality of conduct irrelevant; no misapprehension shown |
| Whether failure to advise re: Dr. Cuneo’s limited confidentiality (725 ILCS 5/104-14(c)) requires plea withdrawal | Dr. Cuneo’s report shows he gave the limited-confidentiality admonition; in any event, any omission was harmless because statements weren’t used at plea | Defendant said he wasn’t told confidentiality limits and relied on examination | Error, if any, was harmless; defendant’s statements were not used against him at plea; claim fails |
| Whether counsel’s failure to advise about an unconstitutional prior conviction prejudiced the plea decision | State conceded the prior conviction would be disregarded at sentencing; defendant still received concurrent 40-year exposure vs potential life sentence if tried | Defendant said he would not have pled if he’d known the prior conv. wouldn’t count and could have negotiated better | No reasonable probability of a different decision shown; defendant received substantial benefit (dismissal of attempted-murder counts and concurrent 40 years); no prejudice shown |
| Whether sentence can be reconsidered after plea withdrawal denied | Sentences were within the negotiated range and plea was not withdrawn | Defendant sought resentencing as abuse of discretion | Because defendant failed to vacate the negotiated plea, court may not revisit the negotiated sentence; sentencing challenge unavailable; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Hughes, 2012 IL 112817 (sets standard for plea-withdrawal review and that withdrawal is not an absolute right)
- People v. Delvillar, 235 Ill. 2d 507 (abuse-of-discretion standard for denial of plea-withdrawal)
- People v. Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116 (invalidating certain aggravated-UUW convictions; relevant to use of prior conviction at sentencing)
- People v. Bridgewater, 235 Ill. 2d 85 (vehicle search incident to arrest principles)
- People v. Brown, 2017 IL 121681 (prejudice standard for rejecting plea based on counsel’s errors)
- People v. Scott, 148 Ill. 2d 479 (harmless-error analysis for fitness-evaluation admonitions)
- People v. Williams, 299 Ill. App. 3d 791 (compliance with Rule 402(c) — factual-basis procedure at plea)
- People v. Abrams, 48 Ill. 2d 446 (exclusionary rule does not justify suppressing evidence of a defendant’s violent reaction to an unlawful search)