The Illinois Supreme Court recently decided People v. Wells, 2024 IL 129402 (March 21, 2024), and considered whether a defendant is entitled to additional jail credit after a negotiated plea. In Wells, the defendant plead guilty to unlawful possession of cannabis with intent to deliver for an agreed disposition of six years in prison with credit for 54 days previously served. At sentencing, the trial judge asked defendant, “Does that accurately state your agreement today?” to which defendant said, “Yes.” Defendant did not file a post plea motion or a direct appeal. Instead, four months after the plea, defendant filed a motion titled "Motion for Order Nunc Pro Tunc" requesting that the trial court amend his mittimus to reflect credit for time he spent on GPS monitoring. The trial court denied the motion.

On appeal, the Fourth District Appellate Court discussed the principle that a "fully negotiated guilty plea constitutes a waiver of presentence custody credit not provided for in the plea agreement." See People v. Wells, 2023 IL App (4th) 220552-U. Based on that principle, the fourth district held that because defendant "bargained for a disposition providing for a specified amount of presentence credit and other significant benefits, he waived the right to any additional credit." 

The Illinois Supreme Court accepted petition for leave to appeal and ultimately affirmed the fourth district’s decision. The court, led by Justice Neville, began by finding that Illinois Supreme Court Rule 472 allows the trial court to retain jurisdiction to correct errors in the calculation of pretrial credit. However, plea agreements are governed to some extent by contract law principles. A contract is integrated when the parties intend it to be a final and complete expression of the agreement between them. When a contract is integrated, additional terms may not be added. The supreme court therefore held that, in such situations, a “presumption arises that every material right and obligation is included and neither party may unilaterally seek modification of the agreement.”

In this case, the supreme court found that the parties intended for defendant to receive exactly 54 days of credit, because that was a clear and unambiguous term of the agreement. The fully negotiated plea agreement “encompassed all relevant considerations, and the parties expected the trial court to immediately enter a final judgment consistent with the terms of the agreement.” The court found no ambiguity in what the parties intended the sentence and credit to be. As such, defendant was not entitled to additional credit.

The court did note, however, that a defendant could still challenge the plea as involuntarily and not made with full knowledge of the consequences. However, in the case before the supreme court, defendant did not challenge his plea. He only sought additional credit.

Wells is significant in practice, where both bench and bar must be mindful that a fully negotiated plea constitutes a binding contract between the state and the defendant. As such, the parties must be fully aware of all sentencing credits and ensure that they are accurately encompassed in the final agreement at sentencing. Otherwise, a defendant’s only hope, as suggested by the supreme court in Wells, is to challenge the plea as involuntary and not made with full knowledge of the consequences. Absent procedural error, this is an uphill battle for defendants.

Judge Randy Rosenbaum is the presiding judge in Champaign County and the chief judge of the 6th Judicial Circuit. Judge Rosenbaum handles murders and other felony matters for Champaign County.