Round v. Lamb
90 N.E.3d 432
| Ill. | 2017Background
- Danny Round pled guilty (July 2013) to two counts: a Class 2 felony (5 years prison + 2 years MSR stated) and a Class 4 felony (3 years prison; statute prescribes 4 years MSR) with concurrent prison terms; the sentencing order did not mention the 4-year MSR for the Class 4 offense.
- Round completed the 3-year term (count III) in Sept. 2014 and the 5-year term (count I) in Sept. 2015; DOC treated the Class 4 conviction as carrying a 4-year MSR that begins only after all prison terms are complete, setting his discharge for Dec. 23, 2017.
- Round sought relief through postconviction proceedings, declined to withdraw his plea when offered shortly after sentencing, and failed to prosecute his appeal (no opening brief filed after extensions).
- He petitioned this Court for habeas corpus or mandamus seeking immediate release or resentencing, asserting (1) no MSR term exists for count III because it was omitted from the written order, (2) if MSR applies it ran concurrently and already expired, and (3) enforcement of a 4-year MSR violates his plea bargain/due process.
- The trial court dismissed postconviction relief; this Court considered statutory interpretation of MSR inclusion, when MSR runs with concurrent sentences, and whether Round’s due-process/plea-bargain rights require reconfiguration of his sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MSR is part of the sentence when omitted from the written order | Round: omission means no MSR for count III; DOC cannot add it | DOC: statute makes MSR mandatory and applies despite omission | MSR is statutory and part of the sentence as a matter of law; omission in written order does not invalidate MSR (directory rule) |
| Whether MSR for count III began while Round was still serving another concurrent prison term | Round: MSR runs when the corresponding prison term finishes, so it ran concurrently and is complete | DOC: MSR cannot commence until all prison terms are completed | MSR cannot be served concurrently with ongoing imprisonment; MSR begins after all prison terms are completed |
| Whether enforcing the longer MSR violates the plea bargain / due process | Round: plea bargain was for 7 years total (5 prison + 2 MSR); enforcing 4-year MSR breaches the bargain and violates due process | State: court and prosecutor lacked authority to promise avoidance of statutorily required MSR; Round had opportunity to withdraw plea and litigate earlier | Whitfield-type due-process relief not warranted here because Round declined to withdraw plea when offered and failed to pursue appellate remedies; no entitlement to reconfiguration |
| Availability of extraordinary relief (habeas or mandamus) | Round: seeks immediate release or mandamus to correct sentence | State: alternative remedies and procedural defaults exist; Round failed to timely and fully pursue them | Habeas and mandamus denied; Round not entitled to extraordinary relief under these facts |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. McChriston, 2014 IL 115310 (MSR imposed by law even if omitted from sentencing order under earlier statute)
- People v. Whitfield, 217 Ill. 2d 177 (failure to advise of MSR that materially alters plea can violate due process; remedies include withdrawal or resentencing)
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (plea bargains must be honored; remedy depends on circumstances)
- People v. Geiler, 2016 IL 119095 (statutory procedural requirements are presumptively directory; prejudice required for relief)
- Beacham v. Walker, 231 Ill. 2d 51 (standards for habeas relief)