People v. Chamness

SIXTH DIVISION
May 4, 2007
No. 1-04-2021
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the
) Circuit Court of
Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Cook County
)
v. )
)
JACKIE CHAMNESS, ) Honorable
) Thomas R. Sumner,
Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge Presiding
JUSTICE McNULTY delivered the opinion of the court:
Our supreme court has ordered us to reconsider our initial
resolution of this appeal from the dismissal of a postconviction
petition. In our previous order we granted defendant, Jackie
Chamness, the relief he sought when we reduced the sentence
imposed following his guilty plea. In his petition for leave to
appeal, defendant sought to withdraw his guilty plea. We must
now determine the effect of defendant's new request on the
resolution of the postconviction petition. We reverse the
dismissal of the petition and remand to the trial court for
further proceedings in accord with this opinion.
BACKGROUND
In 1997 police arrested defendant for violating an order of
protection that directed him to stay away from his former
girlfriend. Inmates in jail with defendant while he awaited
trial reported that he offered to pay them to kill his former
girlfriend. Prosecutors charged defendant with solicitation of
1-04-2021
murder for hire. In 1998 defendant negotiated a sentence
totaling 33 years in exchange for a plea of guilty to the charges
of aggravated stalking and solicitation of murder for hire. The
court accepted the plea without informing defendant that statutes
required the addition of a term of mandatory supervised release
(MSR) following the completion of his sentence. When defendant
entered his plea, he suggested that the inmates had encouraged
him to solicit the murder.
In 2001 defendant filed his postconviction petition. He
claimed that jailhouse informants entrapped him and that the
trial court violated his constitutional rights by failing to
inform him of the MSR. The trial court dismissed the petition.
On appeal we found that the failure to inform defendant of the
MSR term violated his right to due process. Because defendant,
in his briefs to this court, said he did not wish to withdraw his
guilty plea, we granted him relief by reducing his sentence by
the length of the MSR term.
In light of defendant's request for leave to withdraw his
guilty plea, our supreme court directed us to appoint an attorney
to counsel defendant about the ramifications of his request. We
have done so, and following the consultation, defendant has
reasserted his desire to withdraw his guilty plea.
Our supreme court's supervisory order directed us to
-2-
1-04-2021
reconsider the case in light of People v. Whitfield, 217 Ill. 2d
177 (2005). The defendant in Whitfield pled guilty to first
degree murder in exchange for a sentence of 25 years. Whitfield,
217 Ill. 2d at 179. The court did not advise the defendant that
a three-year period of MSR would follow completion of the
sentence. In a postconviction petition the defendant claimed
that the imposition of a greater sentence than that to which he
agreed deprived him of due process. Our supreme court agreed.
Whitfield, 217 Ill. 2d at 195. The defendant did not seek a new
trial; instead, he sought to enforce the bargain he reached with
the prosecution and the court. Because statutory law required
the three-year term of MSR, our supreme court reduced the
defendant's sentence to 22 years, with 3 following years of MSR.
Whitfield, 217 Ill. 2d at 205.
Our supreme court in Whitfield discussed the options
available to defendants in cases involving lack of MSR
admonishment. The prosecution argues that none of those options
apply here because defendant forfeited the issue by failing to
raise it on direct appeal. In Whitfield the court noted the
incongruity of holding that the defendant forfeited the issue:
"To so hold would place the onus on defendant to ensure his own
admonishment in accord with due process." Whitfield, 217 Ill. 2d
at 188. The court addressed the MSR issue on the merits despite
-3-
1-04-2021
the defendant's failure to raise the issue on direct appeal. We
find the reasoning of Whitfield applicable here. Defendant has
not forfeited his claim that the trial court violated his right
to due process by accepting his guilty plea in exchange for a
negotiated sentence without informing him that he would also
serve a term of MSR.
The prosecution concedes that the trial court did not
admonish defendant about MSR. Thus, under Whitfield, defendant
has established a violation of his constitutional rights. Our
supreme court stressed two possible remedies when a defendant has
not received the benefit of his bargain due to incomplete
admonishments. Either the court must fulfill its promise, by
reducing the sentence to accommodate the MSR term, "or defendant
must be given the opportunity to withdraw his plea."
Whitfield, 217 Ill. 2d at 202.
Our supreme court cited in support James v. State, 699
N.W.2d 723 (Minn. 2005). The trial court in that case did not
inform the defendant of a mandated conditional release term that
would follow completion of his negotiated sentence. The
Minnesota Supreme Court found a violation of the defendant's
constitutional rights, but the court neither reduced the sentence
nor granted the defendant a new trial. Our supreme court noted
that the court in James "remanded for further proceedings,
-4-
1-04-2021
stating that, due to the petitioner's substantial delay in
bringing his claim, the court should determine whether allowing
petitioner to withdraw his plea would be unduly prejudicial to
the State, in which case, defendant would be limited to the
alternative remedy." Whitfield, 217 Ill. 2d at 203.
In this case, we have no evidence in the record from which
we can determine whether a retrial would unduly prejudice the
prosecution. Accordingly, following the reasoning of James, we
remand to the trial court for a hearing concerning the prejudice
to the prosecution that might follow if the court grants
defendant leave to withdraw his guilty plea.
Reversed and remanded.
TULLY and O'MALLEY, JJ., concur.
-5-