People v. Williams

2021 IL App (3d) 190298

193 N.E.3d 654

456 Ill.Dec. 414

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Devontae D. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal No. 3-19-0298

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.

Rule 23 Order Filed November 30, 2021

Modified upon denial of rehearing filed January 26, 2022

James E. Chadd, Thomas A. Karalis, and Sean Conley, of State Appellate Defender's Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.

Jeremy Karlin, State's Attorney, of Galesburg (Thomas D. Arado and Gary F. Gnidovec, of State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor's Office, of counsel), for the People.

JUSTICE HAUPTMAN^* delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Defendant, Devontae D. Williams, appeals following the Knox County circuit court's order denying his "Amended Motion to Reconsider Sentence or Vacate the Judgement [sic ] and Allow Defendant to Withdraw Guilty Plea." Defendant argues that the court improperly denied his motion to withdraw guilty plea, where defendant showed a misapprehension of the potential sentencing range. Defendant more specifically contends that the 45-year agreed sentencing cap and imposed sentence are unconstitutional under People v. Buffer , 2019 IL 122327, ¶ 41, 434 Ill.Dec. 691, 137 N.E.3d 763 ; see also People v. Holman , 2017 IL 120655, ¶ 46, 418 Ill.Dec. 889, 91 N.E.3d 849. We affirm.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 On March 18, 2016, in case No. 16-CF-137, the State charged defendant by information with 10 charges¹ related to the March 16, 2016, shooting death of Dakota Tinkham. Specifically, the State charged defendant with four counts of murder, all Class X felonies; four counts of home invasion, all Class X felonies; one count of residential burglary, a Class 1 felony; and one count of possession of a stolen firearm, a Class 2 felony. Several of the home invasion charges alleged that defendant discharged a firearm in the commission of those offenses. At the time, defendant was 17 years old. The court appointed counsel to represent defendant.

¶ 4 On October 16, 2017, pursuant to a partially negotiated plea agreement, the State dismissed the charges in case No. 16-CF-137 and filed a one-count information that charged defendant with first degree murder ( 720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(3) (West 2016)) in case No. 17-CF-519. The information alleged that on March 16, 2016, "without lawful justification and while committing a forcible felony, Residential Burglary, in violation of 720 ILCS 5/19-3, said defendant struck Dakota Tinkham with a blunt object, thereby causing the death of Dakota Tinkham." The charging instrument made no reference to a firearm. In addition to the dismissed charges, the State agreed to cap its sentence request to 45 years’ imprisonment.

¶ 5 Before accepting defendant's plea, the court inquired whether defendant understood that the State was going to recommend that the court sentence defendant to 45 years’ imprisonment. As currently charged, defendant faced a potential sentencing range of 20 to 60 years’ imprisonment. Defendant indicated that he understood the sentence cap attendant to the plea agreement and the sentencing range applicable to the first degree murder charge.

¶ 6 The State's factual basis established that, on March 16, 2016, defendant, along with several other individuals, entered Tinkham's residence. While inside, the individuals took several items belonging to Tinkham. After leaving the residence, the group met at another location and created a plan to return to Tinkham's residence to take more items. Defendant, Miguel Romo, Jovendia Williams, and Justin Timmons, returned to Tinkham's residence to steal additional items. Upon entering Tinkham's residence, a struggle ensued, and Tinkham was struck in the head with a blunt object that caused Tinkham's death.

¶ 7 After hearing the State's factual basis, defendant indicated that he still wished to plead guilty. The court accepted defendant's guilty plea.

¶ 8 At the February 26, 2018, sentencing hearing, Tinkham's parents, Greg Hutton and Jessica Yocum, gave victim impact statements on behalf of the prosecution. Hutton told the court that his only son, Tinkham, was 19 years old when he died. Tinkham had graduated from high school, started a new job, and lived on his own. Tinkham was doing well and had goals that he was determined to reach. Hutton spoke of the affect Tinkham's death had on him, and stated,

"[the] pain of not seeing [Tinkham] or not being able to talk to him or watch him become the man he wanted to be, it hurts beyond words.

Every day is a challenge to get through. [Tinkham] *** was a one-of-a-kind kid. His smile and the way he made everyone laugh with his smart-alec attitude.

* * *

As you can tell, we all loved [Tinkham], and if this hadn't happened, he would still be here. His time with us was cut short. Our lives have been shattered. We each have an emptiness we have to live with every day."

¶ 9 Yocum told the court

"I loved [Tinkham] with all my heart—and my kids with all of my heart, but [Tinkham] was my buddy and my best friend, *** you'll never know *** how that bond means to a parent. *** I hope you realize how much you hurt and have taken from me forever.

* * * *** [T]o lose a happy, healthy young man suddenly, it tears your world apart, and to find out seven people did this to [Tinkham] over some electronics and some weed when *** you could have just fought him with hands, hurt him and left. He would have given anything in that house to still be here.

I get nothing with my son anymore. No holidays, no wedding, grandkids, no more hugs, and the thing I want most is to hear him tell me he loves me. I don't wish this hurt on anybody, but I wish you could feel half of my hurt.

* * *

*** You're alive and still get to talk to the people you love, and all we get is our memories of [Tinkham], our pictures, our stories, and a graveside to sit and cry by. And remember my handsome, loving son ***."

¶ 10 The court noted that before defendant pled guilty, he faced "multiple charges that included murder with a mandatory 25-year firearm enhancement." The court explained that defendant previously faced a minimum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment plus the 25-year firearm enhancement for an effective minimum sentence of 45 years’ imprisonment. After defendant agreed to cooperate in the prosecution of Romo, the State "agreed to amend the original charges and presented a factual basis that [Tinkham] was killed as a result of being struck with a blunt object rather than shot with a firearm. Thus, removing the mandatory 25-year enhancement."

¶ 11 In mitigation, the court found, in part, that defendant exhibited a level of maturity appropriate for an individual of 17 years of age, defendant did not appear to be impetuous, defendant was kind and polite and able to conform his behavior to the requirements of law, defendant had the ability to consider the risks associated with his behavior, and defendant was subjected to peer pressure and negative influences. The court also noted, "defendant's potential for rehabilitation or evidence of rehabilitation is great." Later, the court said defendant's "potential for rehabilitation is quite high." The court also noted

"[A]t the heart of the analysis and this Court's analysis in arriving at the sentence to be imposed in this case are the issues brought up by [defense counsel]. Because not only the U.S. Supreme Court, but the Illinois State Supreme Courts state that defendants under the age of 18 are entitled to close scrutiny whenever a sentence of imprisonment is to be handed down.

***

17-year-olds like the defendant are more vulnerable or susceptible to negative influences and outside pressures, including peer pressure, and they have less control or less experience with control over their own environment. The character of a 17-year-old is not well formed as that of an older adult, and the personality traits of a 17-year-old are more transitory, less fixed, and taken together, those differences mean that the irresponsible conduct of a 17-year-old may not be as morally reprehensible as that of an adult.

***

However, as a sentencing Court, I believe this Court still cannot lose sight of the fact that regardless of the age of the defendant at the time of the commission of the offense, respectfully, [Tinkham] is just as dead. Regardless of whether the defendant was 17, and I've taken that into consideration, or 27, or 52, [Tinkham] is still just as dead."

The court sentenced defendant to 42 years’ imprisonment. The court ordered defendant to pay $9066.69 in restitution.

¶ 12 On March 26, 2018, plea counsel filed a "Motion to Reconsider Sentence or Vacate the Judgement [sic ] and Allow Defendant to Withdraw Guilty Plea." On July 3, 2018, plea counsel filed an "Amended Motion to Reconsider Sentence or Vacate the Judgement [sic ] and Allow Defendant to Withdraw Guilty Plea" and attached an affidavit from defendant. The motion first asked the court to reconsider the sentence imposed. The motion contended that the imposed sentence was excessive and the court did not properly consider factors in mitigation. In the alternative, the motion asked the court to vacate the judgment and allow defendant to withdraw his guilty plea. Defendant averred that plea counsel was ineffective, where counsel pressured defendant to accept the plea agreement. Further, defendant "failed to appreciate the consequences of his plea," because of defendant's "age and inexperience, he did not know what he was doing and felt that his attorney was not going to fight for him, so he pled guilty." In the supporting affidavit, defendant stated that he "didn't know nothing about the laws and what [defendant] should have did [sic ]" and "didn't know anything about the time and what [defendant] was facing." Following defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of plea counsel, the court appointed new counsel to represent defendant.

¶ 13 On April 11, 2019, the court held a hearing on defendant's amended motion. Defendant testified that plea co...