People v. Page, 2022 IL App (4th) 210374

Background

Page had multiple prior DUI convictions (1985, 1988, 2005, plus an aggravated DUI in 2016). The State initially missed the 1985 conviction, leading to miscategorization of charges.
In August 2019 Page was charged for an aggravated DUI; because the 1985 conviction was not known to the State, the charge was prosecuted as a Class 2 (nonprobationable) aggravated DUI.
On March 10, 2020 Page entered an open guilty plea to that aggravated DUI, but the trial court erroneously admonished him that probation remained possible.
The presentence report later revealed the 1985 conviction; at the June 2, 2020 sentencing hearing the court reviewed the plea transcript, concluded the March admonishment was incorrect, and sua sponte vacated Page’s March guilty plea. The State then filed an amended Class 1 aggravated DUI count based on four prior DUIs.
Page subsequently pleaded guilty to the Class 1 count, was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment (concurrent with a 5-year sentence in the earlier 2016 case), and appealed, raising double jeopardy, vindictive-prosecution, ineffective-assistance, and excessive-sentence claims.
The appellate court affirmed, holding the court properly vacated the defective plea, the State’s recharging was not vindictive, ineffective-assistance claims failed for lack of prejudice, and the 10‑year sentence was within range and not excessive.

Issues

Issue	People’s Argument	Page’s Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion or violated double jeopardy by sua sponte vacating Page’s first guilty plea	Court may set aside a plea when defendant was misinformed; vacatur protected Page’s rights and was discretionary	Vacatur was improper and produced double jeopardy because jeopardy had attached on acceptance of the plea	Vacatur was within the court’s discretion under Hancasky; no double jeopardy because vacatur was proper (court did not abuse discretion)
Whether the prosecutor acted vindictively by filing an enhanced Class 1 charge after the plea was vacated	Enhancement was justified by new information (PSI showing a fourth prior DUI); no realistic likelihood of vindictiveness	Charging the Class 1 count punished Page for the court’s sua sponte vacatur and therefore was vindictive	No presumption of vindictiveness; State rebutted any claim—amendment based on newly discovered record, not improper punishment
Whether defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by acquiescing to vacatur and failing to object	Any acquiescence did not prejudice Page because vacatur was proper; no reasonable probability of a different outcome	Counsel was ineffective for not preserving the double jeopardy/vindictiveness claims	Ineffective-assistance claim fails: defendant cannot show prejudice because vacatur and recharging were lawful
Whether Page’s 10‑year sentence was excessive	Sentence within statutory range, court considered aggravation and mitigation and recommended treatment	Sentence excessive given Page’s remorse, nonviolent history, treatment needs, and acceptance of responsibility	Sentence affirmed as within statutory range and not manifestly disproportionate; court reasonably weighed factors

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance standard)
People v. Hancasky, 410 Ill. 148 (trial court may sua sponte withdraw guilty plea when defendant misinformed or plea infirm)
People v. Gaines, 2020 IL 125165 (jeopardy attaches when court unconditionally accepts plea; vacatur analysis)
United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368 (principles on prosecutorial vindictiveness and when presumption arises)
United States v. Whaley, 830 F.2d 1469 (no presumption of vindictiveness where prosecutor recharges after court-initiated mistrial/vacatur)
People v. Delvillar, 235 Ill. 2d 507 (abuse-of-discretion standard for trial-court rulings)