2020 IL App (4th) 180828-U
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- In Jan 2018 Sullivan was charged with two counts of aggravated battery to a child under 13, alleging skull fracture, intracranial hemorrhages, and rib fractures.
- In July 2018 he entered a negotiated guilty plea; the State agreed to cap its sentencing recommendation at 20 years.
- The statute permitted 6–30 years; at sentencing the court found strong aggravating factors (seriousness of harm, deterrence, position of trust) and declined to treat the victim’s age as an aggravator because it was part of the offense.
- The court imposed the 20-year sentence and admonished that to appeal he must file a post‑sentence motion within 30 days asking to reconsider the sentence or to withdraw his plea.
- Sullivan filed a motion to reconsider his sentence (claiming excessiveness) but did not move to withdraw his guilty plea under Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(d). He appealed claiming a due process violation because the court relied on an improper aggravating factor and failed to consider mitigating factors.
- The appellate court dismissed the appeal for failure to comply with Rule 604(d), relying on People v. Johnson and related precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May a defendant who entered a negotiated plea (with a sentencing cap) challenge on appeal that the trial court relied on improper statutory aggravating factors / violated due process without first moving to withdraw the plea under Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(d)? | The State: No—Rule 604(d) requires a timely motion to withdraw the plea when challenging a sentence under a negotiated plea; failure to comply precludes appellate review. | Sullivan: Yes—his claim is a constitutional due‑process challenge (improper consideration of harm; failure to consider mitigating factors) distinct from a routine excessiveness claim, so Rule 604(d) should not bar review. | The court dismissed the appeal: under People v. Johnson and Rule 604(d), such a sentencing challenge is an excessive‑sentence challenge and is barred unless the defendant first moves to withdraw the plea. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Johnson, 129 N.E.3d 1239 (Ill. 2019) (holding Rule 604(d) bars challenging a sentence on the ground the court relied on improper statutory aggravating factors unless the defendant first withdraws the plea)
- People v. Flowers, 802 N.E.2d 1174 (Ill. 2003) (timely Rule 604(d) motion is a condition precedent to appeal from a negotiated plea challenging the sentence)
- People v. Evans, 673 N.E.2d 244 (Ill. 1996) (guilty plea and prosecutor’s sentencing concession are material elements of a plea bargain)
- People v. Linder, 708 N.E.2d 1169 (Ill. 1999) (defendant cannot unilaterally attack the bargained‑for sentence while holding the State to its plea concession)