People v. McRae
959 N.E.2d 1245
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Defendant Maurice A. McRae, a juvenile at the time, was charged in an eight-count indictment for the November 11, 2007 murder of Larry Starks; Counts I-VII alleged first-degree murder with firearm enhancements, and Count VIII charged first-degree murder in a 27-year plea offer; Counts VII/VIII referred to codefendant Houston for mob action and aggravated battery; the case was continued for discovery and negotiation before a negotiated plea to Count VIII.
- During plea negotiations defense counsel described a 27-year offer in exchange for dismissal of other counts, and the court admonished McRae under Rule 402 with a 20–60 year range for Count VIII; the sentence ultimately imposed was 27 years plus 3 years of MSR.
- The State presented a factual basis for the plea linking McRae to the murder, including statements by witnesses and an autopsy showing death from a gunshot wound; the court accepted the plea and McRae was adjudged guilty of first-degree murder.
- After the plea, McRae moved to vacate the plea alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and that his letter to counsel was confiscated and could have been used against him; a Krankel hearing addressed the privileged nature of the confiscated letter.
- The trial court found no basis to withdraw the plea and ruled the letter was not privileged due to lack of an envelope marked “legal mail”; on appeal, White v. Illinois later controlled analysis of the sentence and voided the sentence and entire plea.
- The appellate court remands to permit withdrawal of the plea and to determine the admissibility and privilege status of the confiscated letter on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentence and plea were void for firearm-enhancement misalignment | State concedes sentence below statutory range; White requires void plea | McRae contends plea involuntary due to erroneous legal advice | Void; remand to withdraw plea and proceed to trial if desired |
| Whether the confiscated jailhouse letter is protected by attorney‑client privilege | Privilege not applicable due to envelope not marked 'legal mail' | Letter intended for counsel and confidential; privilege should apply | Privilege applies; remand to resolve seizure facts and potential waiver |
Key Cases Cited
- White, People v., 2011 IL 109616 (Illinois Supreme Court, 2011) (mandatory firearm enhancement requires correct plea sentencing; void judgment and entire plea)
- Knippenberg, People v., 66 Ill.2d 276 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1977) (sixth amendment violation when state intrudes on privileged communications)
- DeFonte, United States v., 441 F.3d 92 (2d Cir., 2006) (inmate privilege independent of fourth amendment privacy; privilege may apply to jail writings)
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1984) (inmate has no expectation of privacy in cell contents for Fourth Amendment but privilege remains)
- Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1977) ( overheard conversations with counsel; scope of counsel privacy under sixth amendment)
- Knippenberg, People v., 66 Ill.2d 276 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1977) (classic privilege case; investigators cannot disclose privileged communications)