Leading appellate attorneys review the two Illinois Supreme Court criminal opinions handed down Thursday, November 14.

People v. Brown, 2024 IL 129585

By Kerry Bryson, Office of the State Appellate Defender

In 2017, Alvin Brown was charged with driving while license revoked, which was a Class 2 felony based on the facts that his license revocation was for DUI and that he had 14 prior driving-while-revoked violations. In 2019, Brown pled guilty to the charge, with no agreement as to the sentence. Because he had at least two prior Class 2 or greater convictions, he was eligible for Class X sentencing and ultimately was sentenced to nine years in prison.

Brown subsequently filed a motion to withdraw his plea, alleging he felt forced to plead due to counsel’s advice that he would receive a 20-year sentence if he did not, and also a motion to reconsider sentence, which contained no specific grounds. At a hearing on those motions, counsel told the court that Brown actually did not want to withdraw his plea, which Brown confirmed. Counsel went on to argue that Brown’s sentence was excessive and that he should have been sentenced as a Class 2 offender. That motion was denied.

After an appeal which resulted in remand for compliance with Supreme Court Rule 604(d), defendant filed a new motion to withdraw plea and reconsider sentence arguing that he did not understand the consequences or effect of his plea. At the 2022 hearing on that motion, counsel noted that after Brown pled and was sentenced, the law changed, effective July 1, 2021, to require that in order for Class X sentencing to apply, a defendant must have been convicted of a“Class 1 or Class 2 forcible felony” and that the prior qualifying convictions also must have been forcible felonies. Brown would not have been eligible for Class X sentencing under the amended statute. Counsel did not argue for application of the amended statute, only that Brown’s sentence should be reconsidered.  The court denied the motion to reconsider, finding defendant’s sentence appropriate.

In the appellate court, Brown sought remand for resentencing, arguing that he was entitled to elect sentencing under the amended version of the Class X sentencing statute [730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-95(b)] because it took effect before the circuit court ruled on his post-plea motion. Brown also argued that the record refuted counsel’s Rule 604(d) certificate, and requested remand for further post-plea proceedings. The appellate court affirmed.

Today, the Supreme Court also affirmed. The amended version of section 5-4.5-95(b) specifically stated its implementation date in the text of the statute as July 1, 2021. This was a clear expression of the legislature’s intent that the statute apply prospectively only.

Brown argued, however, that he had the right to elect sentencing under the amended statute because it became effective while his case was still pending in the circuit court where the proceedings on remand on his post-plea motion were not concluded until May 2022. Specifically, Brown relied on Section 4 of the Statute on Statutes [5 ILCS 70/4], which provides that “if any penalty, forfeiture or punishment be mitigated by any provisions of a new law, such provision may, by the consent of the party affected, be applied to any judgment pronounced after the new law takes effect.” The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the imposition of sentence, and not the ruling on the post-plea motion, was the date that the judgment was final and thus was the controlling date under Section 4 of the Statute on Statutes. Accordingly, Brown could not elect the benefit of the amended statute which took effect after he was sentenced. In so holding, the Court overruled People v. Spears, 2022 IL App (2d) 210583, which had reached a contrary result.

The Court also rejected Brown’s complaint that the record showed that  counsel had not complied with Supreme Court Rule 604(d), despite counsel’s certification that he had. Brown had two opportunities to present his post-plea claims, and the court had two opportunities to reconsider his sentence. Brown affirmed on the record that he had adequate time to consult with counsel, and counsel presented argument sufficient to allow the circuit court to consider Brown’s claims and sufficient to permit appellate review of those claims. An additional remand would be “an empty and wasteful formality;” there was nothing to indicate the court’s ruling would be different if there were a third request to reconsider.

People v. Ratliff, 2024 IL 129356

By Jay Wiegman, Office of the State Appellate Defender

The summary will be added as soon as it is available.