People v. Wigod
406 Ill. App. 3d 66
Ill. App. Ct.2010Background
- Defendant Wigod pled guilty to failure to support under 750 ILCS 16/15(a)(4) and was sentenced to 18 months in prison plus restitution of $85,802.
- Trial court failed to admonish adequately about restitution and other penalties during the plea colloquy.
- Wigod filed postplea motions challenging restitution and sentence; the trial court denied them without Wigod present.
- Appeal argued inadequate Rule 402 admonitions (Rules 604/605), improper restitution timing, and other postplea procedures.
- Court vacated the judgment, allowed withdrawal of the guilty plea, and remanded for further proceedings under the applicable rules and statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Wigod properly admonished about penalties, including restitution, at change-of-plea? | Wigod's plea admonishments were deficient | Insufficient admonishments invalidated the plea | Admonishments inadequate; vacate plea; remand |
| Did Rule 604(d) and 605(b)(2) require counsel and indigence determinations at postplea proceedings? | Rules required proper appointment and indigence findings | No proper compliance during postplea proceedings | Rule compliance required; remand for proper postplea handling |
| Was the restitution order properly authorized and calculated under 750 ILCS 16/15? | Restitution tied to unpaid support existed at sentencing | Remedy and timing of restitution misaligned; ex post facto concerns | Remand for precise accounting; substantively review restitution timing |
| Did the court have authority to impose restitution for pre-enactment arrears? | Act allows restitution; arrears pre-Act may be included | Ex post facto concerns; pre-Act amounts problematic | Remand to determine chronology and credits; address ex post facto issues |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. McLaurin, 235 Ill.2d 478 (2009) (plain-error framework for substantial rights)
- People v. Whitfield, 217 Ill.2d 177 (2005) (due process right to proper and full admonishments)
- People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill.2d 551 (2007) (plain-error standard;)
- Robidoux v. Oliphant, 201 Ill.2d 324 (2002) (de novo review of statutory interpretation)
- People v. Seyferlich, 398 Ill.App.3d 989 (2010) (admonition and consequences of plea)
- Bright v. Dicke, 166 Ill.2d 204 (1995) (rules of supreme court have force of law)
- People v. Nelson, 235 Ill.2d 386 (2009) (forfeiture and preservation principles)