People v. Smith
406 Ill. App. 3d 879
Ill. App. Ct.2010Background
- Smith pled guilty to first-degree murder mid-trial after the State had presented its case and the defense had begun presenting witnesses.
- The trial court had previously offered a 32-year sentence during a Rule 402 conference, which was seen as part of plea discussions.
- Smith was sentenced to 32 years with 100% time; three-year MSR term was mandatory but not admonished to him.
- A 2005 nunc pro tunc reduction reduced the sentence to 29 years plus the three-year MSR, and Smith was not allowed to withdraw his plea.
- Smith moved to withdraw his guilty plea, alleging involuntariness and improper court involvement in plea negotiations; APD later pursued MSR-admonishment issues.
- The court held that Smith entered a negotiated guilty plea and affirmed the reduction rather than allowing withdrawal of the plea, concluding re-trial would unduly prejudice the State.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the plea was negotiated with the court rather than the State | State: plea derived from State negotiations; court participation did not create a valid plea. | Smith: plea was involuntary due to improper court-initiated negotiations. | Yes, negotiated plea; the court affirmed the ruling. |
| Whether lack of MSR admonishment requires withdrawal or sentence reduction | State: reduce sentence to give benefit of bargain; MSR admonishment less critical here. | Smith: remedy should be withdrawal of plea to honor the bargain. | Reduction of three years preferable to withdrawal; MSR admonishment error did not void the plea. |
| Whether the error was invited by the defendant | State: defendant invited the court to reinstate the offer; error not due to court coercion. | Smith: court coerced plea by its involvement. | Invited error; the defendant cannot now complain. |
| Whether the judgment remained void for Rule 402 procedural issues | State: Rule 402 violations do not void judgments; jurisdiction remains. | Smith: implied voidness due to MSR admonishment failure and improper negotiations. | Judgment not void; Rule 402 violation did not defeat jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitfield, 217 Ill.2d 177 (Ill. 2005) (remedies when MSR admonishment absent depend on whether plea was negotiated)
- Dunn, 342 Ill.App.3d 872 (1st Dist. 2003) (negotiated plea found where state and trial court discussed terms at conference)
- Gougisha, 347 Ill.App.3d 158 (1st Dist. 2004) (Rule 402 conference produced a sentence term; plea framed as negotiated)
- Garibay, 366 Ill.App.3d 1103 (2d Dist. 2006) (distinguishes cases where court volunteered sentencing terms; ambiguity duress analysis)
- Chamness, 373 Ill.App.3d 492 (1st Dist. 2007) (retrial prejudice considerations in MSR-related relief)
- Meza, 376 Ill.App.3d 787 (1st Dist. 2007) (plea agreements and negotiated vs open pleas; interpreting terms after Rule 402)
- Pryor, 372 Ill.App.3d 422 (1st Dist. 2007) (invited error doctrine in appellate review)
- Harvey, 211 Ill.2d 368 (2004) (invited error and fair-play concerns in plea negotiations)
- Carter, 208 Ill.2d 309 (2003) (defendant cannot pursue different appellate path after inviting trial court action)
- Speed, 318 Ill.App.3d 910 (2001) (Rule 402 violation does not void conviction)
- Raczkowski, 359 Ill.App.3d 494 (2005) (void vs voidable judgments; jurisdictional limits clarified)