2020 IL App (4th) 170858-U
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- Defendant Willie Millsap was charged with being an armed habitual criminal, aggravated possession of a stolen firearm, and three counts of unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon after police found three stolen firearms in a vehicle he occupied and ammunition on his person following a traffic chase.
- In June 2017 Millsap pleaded guilty to all counts in a negotiated plea; the State agreed to cap its sentencing recommendation at 25 years, but the court warned it was not bound and the maximum on the armed habitual count was 30 years.
- At sentencing the State argued for the 25‑year cap; the court imposed 30 years (armed habitual), 15 years, and 7 years, all concurrent.
- After sentence the court gave admonitions that tracked Rule 605(b) (motion to reconsider), not the Rule 605(c) admonition required for negotiated pleas (motion to withdraw plea to vacate).
- Millsap filed a motion to reconsider (not a motion to withdraw his plea); it was denied, and he appealed. The appellate court remanded for proper Rule 605(c) admonishments and did not reach Millsap’s other sentencing and plea‑breach claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly admonished under Rule 605(c) for a negotiated plea | The court failed to give the Rule 605(c) admonition required for negotiated pleas; remand is required | Remand unnecessary; State forfeited substantive challenges | Court held admonishment was incorrect (605(b) used); remand for proper 605(c) admonitions |
| Whether Millsap’s motion to reconsider satisfied Rule 604(d) for challenging a negotiated plea sentence | For negotiated pleas an appeal claiming excessive sentence requires a motion to withdraw plea under Rule 604(d) | Millsap argued his motion to reconsider should suffice and that Johnson allows review | Court held Millsap needed to file a motion to withdraw the plea; motion to reconsider was insufficient |
| Whether the State breached the plea by calling the cap the "minimum" at sentencing | State maintained the cap was 25 and court not bound | Millsap argued the State breached the agreement at sentencing | Not decided on the merits due to remand for admonishments |
| Whether sentence was excessive / court relied on improper factors | State defended sentence as within statutory range and properly based on record | Millsap argued sentence was excessive, based on impermissible factors, and court failed to weigh youth | Not decided on the merits due to remand for admonishments |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Johnson, 129 N.E.3d 1239 (Ill. 2019) (defendant must move to withdraw plea to challenge sentence after a negotiated plea)
- People v. Jamison, 690 N.E.2d 995 (Ill. 1998) (strict compliance with Rule 605 required; remand when admonitions lacking)
- People v. Young, 903 N.E.2d 434 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009) (remand required where court gave 605(b) admonition instead of 605(c) for negotiated plea)
- People v. Goewey, 802 N.E.2d 371 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003) (trial courts must strictly comply with Rule 605; remand when negotiated plea admonitions omitted)