People v. Cline

1

2024 IL App (4th) 230834-U

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JONATHAN S. CLINE, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 4-23-0834, 4-23-0835

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Fourth District

July 29, 2024

This Order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

Appeal from the Circuit Court of McLean County Nos. 20CF362, 20CF817 Honorable William G. Workman, Judge Presiding.

LANNERD JUSTICE delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Doherty and DeArmond concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

LANNERD JUSTICE.

¶ 1 Held: The appellate court (1) affirmed the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea because defendant failed to establish his plea counsel was ineffective and (2) vacated defendant's sentences because the court improperly considered a factor inherent in the offense of being an armed habitual criminal as an aggravating factor at sentencing.

¶ 2 In March 2021, defendant, Jonathan S. Cline, entered a partially negotiated plea agreement. Defendant pled guilty to one count of being an armed habitual criminal (720 ILCS 5/24-1.7(a) (West 2020)) and one count of theft of property with a value exceeding $500 and not exceeding $10,000 (theft over $500) (id. § 16-1(a)(1)(A)). In exchange for defendant's guilty plea, the State agreed to dismiss eight other charges. The trial court sentenced defendant to 10 years' imprisonment for being an armed habitual criminal and 4 years' imprisonment for theft over $500 to be served consecutively. Defendant timely filed an amended motion to reconsider his sentence or withdraw his guilty plea, which the court denied.

¶ 3 On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred (1) in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea because plea counsel was ineffective for failing to advise defendant he would be required to serve at least 85% of his sentence for being an armed habitual criminal (see 730 ILCS 5/3-6-3(2) (West 2020)) and (2) by improperly considering a factor inherent in the offense of being an armed habitual criminal as an aggravating factor at defendant's sentencing. For the following reasons, we vacate defendant's sentences and remand for a new sentencing hearing.

¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 5 A. The Charges and the Guilty Plea

¶ 6 Defendant was charged with multiple offenses in five cases McLean County case Nos. 20-CF-206, 20-CF-362, 20-CF-817 20-DT-203, and 20-TR-4534. In case No. 20-CF-362, defendant was charged with being an armed habitual criminal (count I), unlawful possession of weapon by felon (count II) (720 ILCS 5/24-1.1(a) (West 2020)), and unlawful possession of methamphetamine (count III) (720 ILCS 646/60(a) (West 2020)). Count I specifically alleged defendant committed the offense of being armed habitual criminal by "knowingly possessing] a .22 caliber rifle firearm after having been convicted of a forcible felony offense of burglary *** and convicted of a forcible felony offense of robbery." In case No. 20-CF-817, he was charged with burglary (count I) (720 ILCS 5/19-1(a) (West 2020)), theft over $500 (count II), three additional counts of theft (counts III through V) (id. § 16-1(a)(1)(A), (a)(4)(A)), unlawful possession of hypodermic syringes (count VII) (720 ILCS 635/1 (West 2020)), and unlawful possession of a controlled substance (count VI) (720 ILCS 570/402(c) (West 2020)).

¶ 7 On March 4, 2021, the parties advised the trial court they had reached a partially negotiated plea agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, defendant would plead guilty to count I in case No. 20-CF-362, being an armed habitual criminal, and count II in case No. 20-CF-817, theft over $500. In exchange for defendant's guilty plea, the State agreed to dismiss all other counts and cases pending against defendant.

¶ 8 Before accepting defendant's guilty plea, the trial court admonished defendant on the possible penalties for the offenses of being an armed habitual criminal and theft over $500:

"[(Being an armed habitual criminal)] is a Class X felony. Class X felonies are punishable by a term of incarceration in the Illinois Department of Corrections of between six and 30 years. That would be followed by a three-year period of mandatory supervised release ***. And a *** fine of up to $25,000 is also possible.

***

[Theft over $500] is a Class 3 felony. Class 3 felonies are punishable by a term of imprisonment in the Illinois Department of Corrections of between two and five years. That would be followed by a one-year period of mandatory supervised release ***. There's also the possibility of a continuing order of either probation or conditional discharge for up to 30 months, and there's a possibility of a fine of up to $25,000.

Now, in this case the State has indicated that you are actually eligible for an extended term based upon your prior record. So that would mean that instead of the two to five years you could actually be sentenced anywhere from two to ten years in the Illinois Department of Corrections still followed by that one-year period of mandatory supervised release."

It then asked defendant whether he had any questions about the charges or possible penalties. Defendant responded he did not. In addition to the court's admonishments, the State noted defendant's sentences would be mandatorily consecutive because he had been released on bond (in case No. 20-CF-362) when he committed the offense in case No. 20-CF-817. Neither the court nor the parties mentioned the truth-in-sentencing requirements for either conviction.

¶ 9 The State then provided a factual basis for each charge. First, in May 2020, law enforcement officers found defendant unconscious behind the wheel of a vehicle that was stopped in an intersection. The officers found a .22-caliber rifle in the vehicle. Defendant had been convicted of two forcible felonies and therefore was not authorized to possess a firearm. Next, in August 2020, a resident of Bellflower Township in Illinois reported someone had taken two snowmobiles from his shed. At a traffic stop, defendant told law enforcement officers the two snowmobiles he had on a trailer were his father's. However, officers recovered the snowmobiles from defendant's father's house and ascertained that they belonged to the Bellflower Township resident.

¶ 10 The trial court conditionally concurred in the plea agreement and set a date for sentencing.

¶ 11 B. Sentencing Hearing

¶ 12 1. The Parties' Arguments

¶ 13 Before beginning its argument, the State noted, for the charge of being an armed habitual criminal, defendant was eligible for drug court. Otherwise, "he is mandatory six to 30 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections to be served at 85% pursuant to statute." Additionally "there [was] no truth-in-sentencing" for the theft conviction and the sentence therefore "would be served at 50%." It again stated the sentences would be mandatorily consecutive.

¶ 14 The State requested an aggregate sentence of 14 years' imprisonment, with "ten years at 85%" and "four years at 50%." In arguing for this sentence, it focused on defendant's criminal history, new charges he committed after he was charged in these cases, his poor record while serving sentences in the community, and the threat he posed to the community due to his proclivity for driving while intoxicated. It also asked the trial court to consider the need to deter others and the theft over $500 offense was committed while he was on bond.

¶ 15 Defense counsel argued defendant's history showed his crucial need for substance abuse treatment. Further, the reports associated with the armed habitual criminal charge suggested the firearm was present only because it was part of a collection of property defendant was attempting to sell to buy more drugs. Counsel argued defendant should thus be sentenced to drug court.

¶ 16 In his statement in allocution, defendant said, although drugs had long been a problem for him, they had taken over his life only after his marriage failed in the year before the offenses. He suggested law enforcement officers saved him from drug overdoses "more than one time." Additionally, defendant told the trial court he had been part of the "[foster care] system" and he wanted better for his young son. He asked the court to sentence him to drug court.

¶ 17 2. The Sentence

¶ 18 The trial court determined few factors in mitigation applied. Specifically, it found defendant "definitely ha[d] demonstrated a[n] addiction, specifically in the last couple of years here" and a long sentence could negatively affect his son. Concerning the factors in aggravation, it stated: "[C]ertainly, with a weapon involved, *** there is definitely a threat [of] *** cause of harm to others, definitely have a long history of prior delinquency, of criminal activity. A sentence in this case is, I believe, necessary to deter others from similar conduct." It further noted defendant was on bond when he committed the offense of being an armed habitual criminal and that "in and of itself is a very serious offense, armed habitual criminal, habitual based upon two prior very serious felonies."

¶ 19 The trial court sentenced defendant to 10 years' imprisonment for being an armed habitual criminal and 4 years' imprisonment for theft over $500.

¶ 20 3. The Original Motion to Reconsider

¶ 21 Defendant filed a timely motion to withdraw his guilty plea or to reconsider the sentence. In his motion, defendant asserted he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea because he "was not aware, and did not contemplate, that the 20 CF 362 sentence was to be served at 85%." Alternatively, he asked the trial court to reconsider its sentence on the basis the court incorrectly believed an armed...