People v. Ware
7 N.E.3d 796
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Defendant Emmanuel Ware was convicted by jury of six counts of armed robbery with a firearm for a 2009 salon robbery in which he and a codefendant forcibly took property while armed. Evidence included witness testimony, surveillance video, and a gun admitted into evidence.
- At trial the court gave a mix of instructions: some oral instructions correctly referenced “firearm,” but several written (and one oral) IPI instructions used the pre-2000 phrasing “dangerous weapon.” Defendant did not object to the instructions.
- Midtrial, defense counsel communicated a desire to plead to 21 years; the trial court rejected that deal on the record, indicating it would not accept 21 years and inviting further negotiation. No contemporaneous objection was made.
- At sentencing the court relied on defendant’s criminal history (including two prior AUUW convictions and a prior kidnapping-related conviction). The court mistakenly believed the prior kidnapping was a Class X aggravated kidnapping and imposed an extended-term sentence.
- The court imposed concurrent 50-year terms on each count (30-year statutory maximum for Class X + 15-year firearm enhancement + 5-year extended term). On appeal Ware challenged the jury instructions, the rejection of the plea, the extended-term sentence, and potential collateral effects of People v. Aguilar on his AUUW priors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Ware) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury instruction misdescribing “firearm” as “dangerous weapon” | No reversible error; verdict supported by evidence and some instructions used "firearm." | Misinstruction violated due process because statute distinguishes firearms from other dangerous weapons; convictions must be vacated. | Error in some instructions existed but was not plain structural error; convictions affirmed. |
| Trial court rejection of midtrial plea (21 years) | Court acted within discretion to reject plea after trial evidence presented; plea acceptance is not a defendant’s absolute right. | Court abused discretion by refusing to consider an allegedly timely plea. | No abuse of discretion; refusal was within court’s authority and not plain error. |
| Extended-term sentencing based on prior Class X conviction | Court argues extended term was permissible only if prior Class X existed. | Extended term improper because defendant’s prior kidnapping was Class 2, not Class X. | Extended-term portion vacated; sentence reduced to maximum nonextended term (45 years including 15-year firearm enhancement). |
| Effect of Aguilar on prior AUUW convictions and need for resentencing | Court: Aguilar issues about earlier AUUW convictions not before this court on this appeal; even if void, they did not affect enhancements here. | AUUW priors may be void under Aguilar; remand for resentencing required. | No jurisdiction to review collateral prior convictions; even if AUUW priors void, they were insignificant to sentence—no resentencing required. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176 (preservation rule for objections and posttrial motions)
- People v. Herron, 215 Ill. 2d 167 (plain-error review coextensive with Supreme Court Rule 451(c))
- People v. Glasper, 234 Ill. 2d 173 (structural-error framework for automatic reversal)
- People v. Pearson, 252 Ill. App. 3d 1 (error in an overall instruction cannot be cured by finding correct instructions elsewhere in the record)
- People v. Henderson, 211 Ill. 2d 90 (trial court may accept or reject plea bargains; review for abuse of discretion)
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (prosecutorial promises and plea-bargain considerations)