2020 IL App (4th) 180143
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- Stevenson sought to plead guilty to aggravated battery (count II) and domestic battery (count III); the court accepted his pleas and imposed 24 months’ probation, dismissing count I under a plea agreement.
- At the guilty-plea hearing the trial judge delivered Rule 402(a) admonitions to multiple defendants as a group in the morning, then proceeded to other matters, and later returned to Stevenson and asked him individually whether he understood the constitutional rights previously described; Stevenson answered yes.
- Stevenson moved to withdraw his guilty pleas; a later amended motion and Rule 604(d) certificate did not raise any objection to the Rule 402(a) admonitions.
- The trial court denied the amended motion after hearing, and Stevenson appealed arguing (1) the Rule 402(a) admonitions were defective because they were given en masse and the court delayed the individual determination of understanding, and (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the Rule 402 claim in the amended motion.
- The appellate court addressed both plain-error review (to avoid forfeiture) and ineffective-assistance review and affirmed the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 402(a) admonitions were defective because they were given to a group and the court delayed asking if defendant understood | People: The admonitions complied with Rule 402(a); the judge later personally determined Stevenson understood before accepting the plea, so no clear or obvious error | Stevenson: Group admonition and the delay violated the requirement to "address the defendant personally" and to determine understanding before accepting the plea | Held: No plain error. Not a clear or obvious Rule 402(a) violation—judge later personally confirmed Stevenson’s understanding before accepting plea; issue forfeited on appeal |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the Rule 402(a) issue in the amended motion to withdraw plea | People: Omitting a debatable challenge is within reasonable professional judgment; counsel’s performance was not deficient | Stevenson: Failure to raise the Rule 402(a) objection was deficient and prejudicial | Held: Ineffective-assistance claim fails. Stevenson did not overcome the strong presumption that counsel’s performance was reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. McLaurin, 235 Ill.2d 478 (2009) (defines plain error as a clear or obvious error affecting substantial rights)
- People v. Davis, 145 Ill.2d 240 (1991) (addresses waiver and plain-error review)
- People v. Marker, 233 Ill.2d 158 (2009) (rules of construction and plain-meaning interpretation of court rules and statutes)
- People v. Perry, 224 Ill.2d 312 (2007) (permitting use of dictionary to interpret statutory language)
- People v. Manning, 241 Ill.2d 319 (2011) (sets the two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
- People v. Palmer, 162 Ill.2d 465 (1994) (articulates the strong presumption that counsel’s performance was reasonable)
- United States v. Fels, 599 F.2d 142 (7th Cir. 1979) (discusses potential pitfalls of en masse admonitions)
- United States v. Roblero-Solis, 588 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2009) (warning against eliciting group responses that obscure individual assent)
- People v. Johns, 229 Ill. App. 3d 740 (1992) (admonitions given at an earlier proceeding may be insufficient if not repeated at the plea hearing)