Opinion
5-22-0190
04-07-2023
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSHUA A. BELL, Defendant-Appellant.
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 Jefferson County. Nos. 17-CF-442, 20-CF-309 Honorable Jerry E. Crisel, Judge, presiding.
JUSTICE CATES delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Welch and Barberis concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
CATES, JUSTICE
¶ 1 Held: The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
¶ 2 The defendant, Joshua A. Bell, appeals from an order of the circuit court of Jefferson County denying his motion to withdraw his plea of guilty and vacate the judgment. The issue is whether the circuit court abused its discretion by denying the defendant's motion. We affirm.
The defendant filed one motion to withdraw plea of guilty and vacate judgment for both 17-CF-442 and 20-CF-309.
¶ 3 BACKGROUND
¶ 4 On October 27, 2017, Joshua Bell was charged by information in case No. 17-CF-442 with two felony counts. Count I alleged theft, in violation of section 16-1(a)(4) of the Criminal Code of 2012 (720 ILCS 5/16-1(a)(4) (West 2016)), a Class 3 felony, and count II alleged unlawful possession of methamphetamine, in violation of section 60(b)(1) of the Methamphetamine Control and Community Protection Act (720 ILCS 646/60(b)(1) (West 2016)), a Class 3 felony. The defendant was arrested and posted bail. An indictment followed on November 16, 2017. A trial date was set and, for a variety of reasons unrelated to this appeal, was continued multiple times.
¶ 5 On October 1, 2020, the defendant was out on bail when he was charged in case No. 20-CF-309 with unlawful financial exploitation of an elderly person in violation of section 17-56(a)(1) of the Criminal Code of 2012 (720 ILCS 5/17-56(a)(1) (West 2018)), a Class 4 felony. The defendant was subsequently indicted for that offense on October 22, 2020. The State also filed a restitution request for the sum of $200. The defendant was arrested and confined to the Jefferson County jail, with bond being set. The defendant also had a related charge, in cause No. 20-CF-354, and several traffic violations.
¶ 6 On December 9, 2020, the defendant appeared with counsel for a plea hearing before the circuit court in cause Nos. 17-CF-442, 20-CF-309, and 20-CF-354. Prior to the start of the proceedings, the defendant was given the opportunity to speak privately with his attorney. Once the defendant had concluded his discussion with counsel, the State informed the court that the defendant had agreed to a partially negotiated open plea agreement. Specifically, the open plea related to the two felony counts in 17-CF-442, and the single felony count in 20-CF-309. In exchange for the defendant's guilty pleas in those cases, the State agreed to dismiss all pending traffic cases against the defendant, and an additional felony count in cause No. 20-CF-354. Defense counsel acknowledged the negotiated plea agreement.
¶ 7 The State then provided the circuit court with a factual basis for 17-CF-442 as it related to count I, theft, a Class 3 felony, and count II, unlawful possession of methamphetamine of less than five grams, a Class 3 felony. After the State provided the factual basis for those two counts, the circuit court asked the defendant whether the facts set forth were "correct." The defendant replied in the affirmative.
¶ 8 The State then directed its attention to 20-CF-309 and provided the factual basis for the charge involving unlawful exploitation of an elderly person. At the conclusion of the State's presentation, the defendant again affirmatively acknowledged that the facts set forth by the prosecutor were correct.
¶ 9 The circuit court then admonished the defendant regarding his rights. The defendant was asked whether he understood that he did not have to plead guilty, and whether he understood that he was giving up his "constitutional rights" as they related to the charges. The defendant replied, "Yes, your Honor." The circuit court continued to ensure the defendant understood his rights on the plea of guilty by informing the defendant there was a presumption of innocence, unless and until the State proved the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The circuit court further explained that the State had the burden of proof and the presumption of innocence stayed with the defendant unless he was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant was informed that he had the right to plead not guilty and have his case heard by a jury trial or bench trial, and that a bench trial proceeded by the same rules of evidence and proof as a jury trial.
¶ 10 The defendant was also informed that he had the right to be represented by an attorney; that he had the right to confront witnesses in open court; that he had the right to see the evidence against him before the trial; that he had the right to be present at every hearing; that he had the right to present a defense at trial; and that he had the right to remain silent, and if he remained silent, that fact could not be used against him at trial. Finally, the circuit court indicated the defendant had the right to a speedy trial and that because the defendant was in custody, the right was automatic. The circuit court further explained the nuances of the right to speedy trial.
¶ 11 Following these admonitions, the circuit court asked the defendant if he understood all of the rights he would give up if he pled guilty. The defendant replied, "Yes, your Honor."
¶ 12 The circuit court then asked the defendant whether he persisted in his pleas of guilty to the charges of theft and possession of methamphetamine in 17-CF-442 and the charge of unlawful exploitation of an elderly person in 20-CF-309. The defendant responded, "Yes, your Honor." The circuit court went on to explain that upon a plea of guilty, there may be "collateral consequences," such as a higher possibility of the imposition of consecutive sentences, and registration requirements that restrict where the defendant might be able to work, live, or otherwise be present. The defendant was further informed that the plea of guilty could affect his ability to obtain employment, obtain housing in the public or private market, obtain an occupational license, and retain or obtain a firearm. Again, the defendant was asked if he understood the possible "collateral consequences," and the defendant replied in the affirmative.
¶ 13 The circuit court then asked the defendant, again, whether he was persisting in his pleas of guilty, knowing all of the rights he was giving up. The defendant replied, "Yes, your Honor."
¶ 14 The circuit court next discussed with the defendant the potential penalties for sentencing if the defendant pled guilty to the various charges. The circuit court explained that because the defendant had a prior Class 1 felony conviction, he was eligible for extended term sentencing on the Class 3 felonies. When asked, the defendant again indicated he understood all of the implications of the sentencing ranges as explained by the circuit court. And, again the defendant indicated that he wanted to persist in his pleas of guilty, knowing all of the sentencing possibilities on the various felony charges.
¶ 15 The circuit court then inquired whether the defendant had signed the guilty plea form. The form was shown to the judge and the defendant acknowledged that he had signed the form. The circuit court asked the defendant whether anyone had forced or threatened him to sign the form. The defendant replied, "No, your Honor." The defendant was then asked whether anybody made any promises to him, other than the agreement set forth in the court that day. The defendant replied, "No, your Honor." The defendant was then asked whether he had been given sufficient time to go over the proceedings with his attorney before he signed the guilty plea form. The defendant replied affirmatively. When the circuit court asked whether the defendant needed any more time to speak with his attorney about the proceedings, the defendant indicated that he did not need additional time and that he was very satisfied with his counsel's services.
¶ 16 The circuit court then asked the defendant whether his signature on the plea of guilty form should be accepted as the defendant's "free and voluntary act." The defendant replied, "Yes, your Honor." With that answer, the circuit court accepted the partially negotiated open plea agreement, finding that the pleas given by the defendant were made knowingly and intelligently, and were voluntary. The circuit court acknowledged the defendant's assurances that he understood that by pleading guilty, he was giving up his constitutional rights; that he understood the collateral consequences of the plea of guilty; and that he understood the possible sentencing ranges for the various felonies to which he was pleading guilty.
¶ 17 The circuit court, having been convinced that the defendant's pleas were knowing and voluntary, then accepted the defendant's plea to counts I and II in 17-CF-442 and his plea to the felony count in 20-CF-309. The circuit court dismissed cause No. 20-CF-354 and all pending traffic matters. A presentence investigation was ordered, and a sentencing hearing was set for April 8, 2021. Near the conclusion of the circuit court's comments, the State sought to further clarify the sentencing possibilities for the felonies to which the defendant had pled guilty. Specifically, the State wanted the circuit court to know that the defendant was subject to mandatory consecutive sentencing on the 20-CF-309 case, as it was committed while the defendant was out on bail. Having heard that clarification, the circuit court again asked the defendant whether that made a difference in the defendant's plea of guilty. The defendant replied, "No, your Honor."
The sentencing hearing did not occur on April 8, 2021, through no fault of the defendant.
¶ 18 On May 26, 2021, the defendant, through new counsel, filed a combined motion to withdraw guilty plea and vacate judgment in both 17-CF-442 and 20-CF-309. In his pleading, the defendant averred, under oath, that his plea had not been given voluntarily because, on that date, the defendant was being held in the Jefferson County jail; that as part of the agreement with the State, the defendant was to be released from the Jefferson County jail; that the Jefferson County jail was infected with the COVID-19 virus; and that the defendant's fear of contracting the virus "compelled him to seek an agreement with the State that would allow him to be released from the Jefferson County Jail." The defendant further stated that because of his fear "of being stricken with COVID-19 while at the Jefferson County Jail," his plea of guilty was not voluntary. The defendant requested that he be allowed to withdraw his plea of guilty and that the judgment be vacated.
¶ 19 On September 9, 2021, the circuit court held a sentencing hearing. The State presented two witnesses, including the victim of the theft in count I of 17-CF-442. The victim testified to the circumstances of the theft charge and the State requested restitution. The State also argued the various factors in aggravation, including the defendant's extensive prior criminal history, that included 22 felony convictions, and requested the maximum of 10 years on counts I and II in 17-CF-442. The State also requested that the circuit court sentence the defendant to a term of three years on the exploitation charge, 20-CF-309. Defense counsel responded that only two of the defendant's prior criminal offenses involved violence and suggested that probation would be the appropriate sentence so that the defendant could have access to drug rehabilitation.
¶ 20 The defendant also testified at his sentencing hearing. He apologized to the victims for taking their property. He claimed that he was addicted to alcohol and drugs and could not quit. He admitted that he stole in order to buy drugs. The defendant asked the circuit court to sentence him to probation so that he would be able to access drug court.
¶ 21 Ultimately, the circuit court sentenced the defendant to nine years' imprisonment on count I in 17-CF-442, to run concurrently with a nine-year sentence on count II in 17-CF-442. Restitution was ordered in the amount of $499.22. In cause No. 20-CF-309, the circuit court sentenced the defendant to four years' imprisonment, to run consecutively with the previous sentences, as required by statute. The issue of restitution was continued at the request of the State. Before imposing the sentences, the circuit court considered various factors in aggravation, including the defendant's prior criminal history, the fact that the sentence was necessary to deter others from committing the same crime, that the offense of exploitation was committed against a person aged 60 years or older, and that the defendant was on bail when the exploitation offense occurred. In mitigation, the circuit court acknowledged that the defendant's conduct did not cause or threaten serious physical harm to another. Subsequent to sentencing and the entry of judgment, the circuit court then gave the defendant postplea admonitions in 17-CF-442 regarding his rights to appeal pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 605 (eff. Oct. 1, 2001). A final judgment was not entered in 20-CF-309, because the State's request for restitution in that case remained pending. At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, the circuit court set a hearing for all remaining matters.
¶ 22 On September 10, 2021, the defendant filed a motion to reconsider sentence in 17-CF-442. He acknowledged his plea of guilty to counts I and II but claimed that the circuit court had erred in sentencing him to nine years in the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC). The defendant also filed a motion to reconsider sentence in 20-CF-309. The defendant claimed that the circuit court erred in sentencing him to a term of four years in the IDOC. Each of the defendant's motions averred that the circuit court had improperly applied factors in aggravation found at section 5-53.2 of the Unified Code of Corrections (730 ILCS 5Z5-5-3.2 (West 2020)), that the circuit court failed to recognize the defendant's potential for rehabilitation, and that the sentences were "excessive and unreasonable" in light of the facts presented.
This motion was premature as judgment had not yet become final in 20-CF-309.
¶ 23 On January 6, 2022, the circuit court held a hearing on all pending issues. On that date, the State withdrew its request for restitution in 20-CF-309. In light of this withdrawal, the judgment in 20-CF-309 became final. The circuit court instructed the defendant on his rights to appeal pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 605. Inasmuch as the defendant was incarcerated, and was only present by videoconferencing, no further motions were heard. The circuit court continued the defendant's motion until March 17, 2022, when the defendant could appear personally in court.
¶ 24 On March 17, 2022, the defendant appeared before the circuit court for a hearing on his pending motion to withdraw plea of guilty and vacate judgment. During the hearing, the defendant testified on his own behalf. He acknowledged his plea of guilty to the various counts on which he was sentenced to the IDOC. He testified that at the time he pled guilty, he was incarcerated at the Jefferson County jail. The defendant also explained that because of other pending charges in Hamilton County, even had he been released from the Jefferson County jail, he would have been detained on certain charges pending in Hamilton County. The defendant indicated that he would have been detained in the White County jail, because Hamilton County does not have a jail. The defendant testified that he was fearful at the Jefferson County jail because the correctional officers there told the defendant that there were positive cases of COVID. The defendant stated that he pled guilty because he was afraid of getting COVID and was told he would be released from the Jefferson County jail to the White County jail. The defendant wanted to go to the White County jail because he had a "fear of death." The defendant further explained that his brother had died of COVID in July 2020. Finally, the defendant indicated that after his plea of guilty, he was transferred to the White County jail. On cross-examination by the State, the defendant admitted that he never brought his concern before the circuit court during the plea hearing. When asked why he did not do so, the defendant responded that he did not know what to do. Additionally, he testified that his plea was not voluntary, and when asked that question by the circuit court during the plea process, he "lied."
¶ 25 At the conclusion of the defendant's testimony, the circuit court heard arguments on the motion to withdraw plea of guilty and vacate judgment. Subsequently, the circuit court considered whether the evidence had shown that there had been a manifest injustice such that the guilty pleas should be withdrawn. The circuit court found that the threshold standard had not been met and denied the defendant's motion to withdraw plea of guilty and vacate judgment.
The circuit court also considered and denied the defendant's motion to reconsider sentence in 17-CF-422 and 20-CF-309, but these issues are not raised on appeal.
¶ 26 ANALYSIS
¶ 27 On appeal, the defendant claims that the circuit court abused its discretion by denying the defendant's motion to withdraw plea of guilty and vacate judgment. The defendant argues that his pleas were not knowing and voluntary, and that he pled guilty due to his fear of COVID-19 that he alleges was present in the Jefferson County jail.
¶ 28 A defendant is not automatically entitled to withdraw a guilty plea and bears the burden of showing why the circuit court should permit withdrawal. People v. Smith, 406 Ill.App.3d 879, 885 (2010). A defendant seeking to withdraw his plea for reasons other than imperfect admonitions must demonstrate a "manifest injustice" under the unique facts of the case. People v. Guzman, 2015 IL 118749, ¶ 15 (citing People v. Delvillar, 235 Ill.2d 507, 520 (2009)). Whether to permit a defendant to withdraw his guilty plea is within the discretion of the circuit court and that decision will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. People v. McIntosh, 2020 IL App (5th) 170068, ¶ 36. An abuse of discretion will be found only where the court's ruling is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable or where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court. Delvillar, 235 Ill.2d at 519.
¶ 29 "For a guilty plea to be constitutionally valid, there must be an affirmative showing that the plea was made voluntarily and intelligently." People v. Urr, 321 Ill.App.3d 544, 547 (2001). The Illinois Supreme Court adopted Illinois Supreme Court Rule 402 (eff. July 1, 2012) to assist the circuit court in determining whether a plea is voluntarily and intelligently entered into. Urr, 321 Ill.App.3d at 547. Rule 402 requires the circuit court to admonish the defendant on the nature of the crime charged, the sentencing range of the crimes involved in the plea, and the rights which the defendant forfeits as a result of pleading guilty. Urr, 321 Ill.App.3d at 547. When a defendant claims, as he does here, that he only pled guilty due to the nature of the conditions at the jail, this does not necessarily mean that his plea was involuntary. Urr, 321 Ill.App.3d at 547. Instead, the defendant must allege that specific conditions at the jail caused him to plead guilty, and he must sufficiently establish a nexus between those conditions and the guilty plea. People v. St. Pierre, 146 Ill.2d 494, 508 (1992).
¶ 30 Here, the defendant does not claim he was not given the proper admonitions under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 402. Nor does he suggest that he did not understand the admonitions as they were being given to him by the circuit court. Indeed, the record reflects that the circuit court carefully admonished the defendant of all of his rights, and questioned the defendant as to his understanding that he was waiving those rights. The defendant admitted his guilt in all of the crimes charged and fully acknowledged his understanding of the various constitutional rights that he was giving up by pleading guilty. These facts, alone, give rise to the inference that the defendant's plea was understandingly made. People v. Daubman, 190 Ill.App.3d 684, 693 (1989).
¶ 31 The defendant now claims that his plea was not voluntary, and that he only pled guilty due to his fear of COVID-19 in the Jefferson County jail. In support of his generalized fear, the defendant provides only self-serving statements that allege a federal inmate, name unknown, contracted COVID-19 and was removed from a cellblock area; that the correctional officers indicated that there was COVID-19 in the Jefferson County jail; and that his fear was exacerbated by the death of his brother from COVID-19. The defendant further claims he only pled guilty to obtain a transfer from the Jefferson County jail to the White County jail.
¶ 32 The record shows that the defendant was given the opportunity to speak with his counsel before the plea hearing began. There is no indication from plea counsel or the defendant that he told plea counsel of these concerns related to his fear of COVID. At no time during the circuit court's admonishments did the defendant state to the circuit court that he was pleading guilty to avoid the Jefferson County jail due to COVID-19, despite the fact that he was asked on several occasions to respond to the circuit court's questions. The defendant signed the plea of guilty form and acknowledged that he did so voluntarily. He told the circuit court that no one had forced or threatened him to sign that form, and that no promises had been made. The defendant also told the circuit court that he had been given ample time to go over the plea of guilty form with his attorney and that he was very satisfied with his attorney's services. There was never any doubt raised that the defendant committed the crimes as alleged. And after all of the admonitions and the court's questioning, the circuit court asked the defendant:
"THE COURT: *** Do you want me to accept your signature on that guilty plea as your free and voluntary act?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor."
¶ 33 Defendant has not cited any case law that states the fear of a contagious disease is a basis for withdrawing a fully admonished plea of guilty. At no time did the defendant mention his fear of COVID-19 to his plea counsel. At no time did he raise an inkling of his concerns with the circuit court, despite the multitude of questions posed to him by the court. Thus, we are left with the defendant's self-serving statements, which are nothing more than unsubstantiated, generalized statements. Nothing by way of evidence or information regarding the number of COVID cases present in the Jefferson County jail has been offered. There is no evidence regarding whether the defendant was housed in a cell with any COVID-infected inmates, and no information regarding the Jefferson County jail's COVID protocols and whether they were adequate to prevent the spread of COVID. In sum, there were no specifics offered by the defendant that were minimally sufficient to establish the threshold requirement of a manifest injustice by the circuit court.
¶ 34 CONCLUSION
¶ 35 For the reasons stated above, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's combined motion to withdraw plea of guilty and vacate judgment in 17-CF-442 and 20-CF-309.
¶ 36 Affirmed.