People v. Stone
100 N.E.3d 672
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- Jasmin Stone was charged in two cases with felony theft; she signed written guilty pleas in both and the State agreed to dismiss a separate probation violation and cap sentencing request at a total of 16 years.
- The trial court admonished Stone of the sentencing ranges (including extended-term potential and that sentences would be consecutive) and of trial-related rights; Stone signed forms acknowledging her rights and understanding of penalties.
- At sentencing the court imposed consecutive six-year terms on each count for a 12-year aggregate term; the clerk later recorded $2,518 in costs/assessments.
- Stone filed pro se motions to reconsider and to withdraw her pleas; counsel was appointed and argued her pleas were involuntary because plea counsel allegedly guaranteed probation and failed to advise on consecutive/extended-term exposure.
- At the withdrawal hearing plea counsel testified he discussed probation as a possibility but gave no guarantees and had advised Stone of maximum and consecutive exposure; the court denied the motion to withdraw.
- Stone appealed, arguing (1) the court failed to comply with Ill. S. Ct. Rule 402 by omitting elements and right to persist in not guilty plea, (2) the judge prejudged the case, and (3) several clerk-imposed fines were unauthorized.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court had to admonish defendant of the elements of the offense under Rule 402 | State: Rule 402 does not require recitation of elements; court complied | Stone: Rule 402 required admonishment of elements; omission invalidates plea | Held for State — Rule 402 does not require elements; admonishment by counsel suffices (citing Stumpf/Jackson) |
| Whether court failed to admonish defendant of right to persist in a not-guilty plea | State: Substantial compliance with Rule 402 via written plea form and signature | Stone: Court did not orally admonish of right to persist; plea involuntary | Held for State — substantial compliance shown by signed plea form containing the right; no reversible error |
| Whether judge prejudged defendant, warranting reversal or remand | State: Any hostile comments did not prejudice Stone; she pled guilty so guilt was not adjudicated by judge | Stone: Judge’s comments show bias and prejudgment affecting fairness and plea-withdrawal denial | Held for State — court takes no position on propriety of comments but Stone failed to show prejudice or that bias caused denial of withdrawal |
| Whether clerk-imposed fines/assessments were unauthorized and must be vacated | State: Concedes several clerk-imposed financial assessments lack authority | Stone: Urges vacatur of unauthorized assessments | Held for Stone — the listed assessments (totaling $595) were imposed without authority and are vacated per State concession |
Key Cases Cited
- Bradshaw v. Stumpf, 545 U.S. 175 (2005) (judge not required to explain elements; counsel can satisfy constitutional prerequisites by explaining elements)
- People v. Jackson, 199 Ill. 2d 286 (Illinois) (Rule 402 does not require the court to explain elements before accepting a plea)
- In re B.C.P., 2013 IL 113908 (Ill. 2013) (trial court must follow Rule 402 as written)
- People v. Burt, 168 Ill. 2d 49 (Illinois) (substantial compliance with plea-admonition rule sufficient)
- People v. Walker, 109 Ill. 2d 484 (Illinois) (record must show defendant understood Rule 402 components absent verbatim recitation)
- People v. Dismuke, 355 Ill. App. 3d 606 (Ill. App. 2005) (standard of review for Rule 402 challenges)
- People v. West, 187 Ill. 2d 418 (Illinois) (counsel not deficient for failing to raise meritless issues)
- People v. Phuong, 287 Ill. App. 3d 988 (Ill. App. 1997) (judge bias can require reversal where bias affects adjudication)
- People v. Tatum, 389 Ill. App. 3d 656 (Ill. App. 2009) (defendant entitled to trial free from prejudicial judicial comments)