People v. Murray
148 N.E.3d 235
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background:
- Murray pled guilty to one count of residential burglary and two counts of aggravated battery as part of a plea deal: State would dismiss other counts, recommend no more than 12 years, and allow release on recognizance until sentencing.
- At plea hearing the court warned it could exceed the 12-year recommendation and specifically warned misbehavior while on ROR could lead to a harsher sentence.
- While on ROR, Murray was arrested on new aggravated battery charges; at sentencing the court considered the PSI, victim impact, Murray's criminal history, and aggravating/mitigating factors and imposed 15 years for burglary and concurrent 5-year terms for batteries.
- Post‑sentence, counsel moved to withdraw the plea (ineffective assistance claim) and filed a motion to reconsider sentence; the court denied withdrawal and declined to reconsider sentencing.
- This court previously remanded for a Krankel hearing and found Rule 604(d) noncompliance; on remand a new counsel conducted the Krankel hearing, the court again denied ineffective assistance and declined to hold a new motion-to-reconsider sentencing hearing; Murray appeals only as to the mandate and sentence.
Issues:
| Issue | People’s Argument | Murray’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this court’s remand required a new hearing on Murray’s motion to reconsider sentence | Remand required Krankel and post‑plea withdrawal proceedings only; no entitlement to a new sentencing‑reconsideration hearing | Mandate implicitly required a new hearing on the motion to reconsider sentence | The mandate did not require a new sentencing‑reconsideration hearing; People v. Johnson limits post‑plea recourse to withdrawing the plea when plea contains sentencing concessions |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing maximum sentences | Sentence within statutory range and justified by seriousness of offense, victim harm, Murray’s criminal history, and new charges while on ROR | Maximum sentence was excessive; court relied on improper/inherent factors and failed to give mitigating weight to the plea and remorse | No abuse of discretion: sentences are within range, court considered proper aggravating/mitigating factors, and harm/seriousness were valid bases for the maximum term |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Johnson, 2019 IL 122956 (where plea includes sentencing concessions, defendant's postplea recourse is limited to withdrawing the plea)
- People v. Streit, 142 Ill. 2d 13 (trial court is not bound by plea agreement sentencing recommendation)
- People v. Alexander, 239 Ill. 2d 205 (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for appellate review of sentencing)
- People v. Saldivar, 113 Ill. 2d 256 (degree of victim harm is a proper aggravating sentencing consideration)
- People v. Rennie, 2014 IL App (3d) 130014 (serious bodily harm may be considered even when implicit in the offense)