People v. Young
123 N.E.3d 641
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- Defendant Zakeya E. Young pleaded guilty (Aug 12, 2016) to misdemeanor battery under a plea agreement (24 months probation, 60 days jail) after preliminary hearing testimony and surveillance video showed she brought jumper cables into a bar and allegedly attacked the victim.
- The circuit court accepted the plea after admonishing defendant under the statute then in effect and imposed fines and probation fees; some presentence custody and bond payments were credited.
- Defendant filed a motion to withdraw her guilty plea (Aug 24, 2016), alleging the plea was unknowingly and involuntary; counsel filed a Rule 604(d) certificate stating he had consulted with her.
- At the withdrawal hearing defendant said she had "the whole weekend to think about" consequences (loss of CNA license, job, financial hardship) and now wanted to withdraw; the court denied the motion as a change of mind and entered appeal the same day.
- While this appeal was pending the legislature amended the guilty-plea admonishment statute (effective Jan 1, 2017) to require warning about collateral impacts (housing, employment, licenses); the issue whether that amendment applies retroactively was central on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Young) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactivity of new admonishment statute | New admonishments need not apply retroactively to cases where proceedings in trial court are complete | The amendment is procedural and should apply retroactively to her pending appeal, requiring remand | Amendment does not apply retroactively; no remand because trial-court proceedings were complete before amendment (People v. Hunter controls) |
| Validity of plea / motion to withdraw (knowing & voluntary) | Plea was properly admonished and voluntary; defendant only changed her mind after reflection | Plea was unknowing/involuntary due to collateral-consequence misapprehension (loss of CNA license, employment, probation cost) | Denial affirmed: defendant failed to show a misapprehension of fact or law; testimony showed change of mind, not mistake; overwhelming evidence of guilt |
| Compliance with Rule 604(d) (counsel consultation) | Counsel’s certificate complied; record does not rebut it | Counsel substantively failed to consult (court hearing comments show he couldn’t proffer reasons) | No remand: certificate stands; counsel’s in-court comment did not rebut compliance; appropriate not to proceed when defendant was absent |
| Monetary assessments imposed by circuit clerk | Clerk acted administratively; court lacks jurisdiction to review clerk-only actions on appeal | Clerk miscalculated fines, failed to apply presentence credit, imposed excess judicial security fee | Court lacks jurisdiction to review clerk’s actions under People v. Vara; monetary claims not considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Will County Collector, 196 Ill. 2d 27 (establishes Landgraf-based retroactivity framework applied in Illinois)
- Caveney v. Bower, 207 Ill. 2d 82 (statute-on-statutes/section 4 means procedural changes generally apply retroactively)
- People ex rel. Alvarez v. Howard, 2016 IL 120729 (procedural amendment applied to pending trial-court cases)
- People v. Hunter, 2017 IL 121306 (amendment effective during appellate pendency does not mandate remand where trial proceedings had concluded)
- People v. Ziobro, 242 Ill. 2d 34 (new procedural rules apply on remand where reversal requires further trial-court proceedings)
- People v. Baez, 241 Ill. 2d 44 (defendant has no absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea)
- People v. Delvillar, 235 Ill. 2d 507 (defendant bears burden to show misapprehension of fact or law for plea withdrawal)
- People v. Vara, 2018 IL 121823 (appellate courts lack jurisdiction to review actions taken solely by circuit clerks)