Notwithstanding the failure to properly raise the issue of misapprehension in the motion, it was fully argued to the trial court and ruled upon, and we deem it in the interest of justice to consider it. • 7 We set forth the basic doctrine on mistaken impressions in People v. Smithey (1983), 120 Ill. App.3d 26, 33: "The well-settled doctrine in this State is that mistaken subjective impressions, in the absence of substantial objective proof showing that they were reasonably justified, do not provide sufficient grounds upon which to vacate a guilty plea.
• 1 A defendant has no absolute right to withdraw his guilty plea and bears the burden of demonstrating to the trial court the necessity of withdrawing his plea. ( People v. Smithey (1983), 120 Ill. App.3d 26, 31.) It is within the sound discretion of the trial court to determine whether a guilty plea may be withdrawn, and, on appeal, this decision will not be disturbed unless it is an abuse of that discretion. People v. Davis (1991), 145 Ill.2d 240, 244.
' " People v. Spriggle, 358 Ill. App. 3d 447, 451 (2005) (quoting People v. Artale, 244 Ill. App. 3d 469, 475 (1993)). It is a defendant's burden to establish "that the circumstances existing at the time of the plea, judged by objective standards, justified the mistaken impressions." People v. Smithey, 120 Ill. App. 3d 26, 33 (1983). Defendant has not met his burden.
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 80 L.Ed.2d at 698, 104 S.Ct. at 2068. Defendant has the burden of showing to the trial court the necessity of withdrawing his plea, and it is within the discretion of the trial court to determine whether the plea may be withdrawn. ( People v. Smithey (1983), 120 Ill. App.3d 26, 31.) The withdrawal of a guilty plea may be allowed in circumstances where the plea resulted from a misapprehension of law or fact, or in cases where it appears the plea was entered as a result of a misrepresentation by counsel, the State's Attorney, or someone else in authority. ( Smithey, 120 Ill. App.3d at 31.)
The withdrawal of a guilty plea should be allowed in circumstances where the plea resulted from the misapprehension of law or fact or in cases when it appears the plea was entered as a result of a misrepresentation by counsel, the State's Attorney, or someone else in authority. ( People v. Smithey (1983), 120 Ill. App.3d 26, 458 N.E.2d 87.) A defendant's mistaken subjective impressions gained from conferences with his legal counsel, in the absence of substantial objective proof showing that they were reasonably justified, do not provide sufficient grounds upon which to set aside his plea of guilty. ( Hale, 82 Ill.2d 172, 411 N.E.2d 867; Smithey, 120 Ill. App.3d 26, 458 N.E.2d 87.) The defendant as petitioner bears the burden of showing that the circumstances as they existed at the time of the plea, judged by objective standards, reasonably justified his mistaken impression. Hale, 82 Ill.2d 172, 411 N.E.2d 867.
The State maintains that the trial court correctly found that the Pappas information was collateral and not sufficient to permit the defendant to withdraw his voluntary plea of guilty to the Borowski murder. • 1 The general principles governing the withdrawal of guilty pleas are well established. It is axiomatic that a defendant has no absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea. ( People v. Smithey (1983), 120 Ill. App.3d 26, 31, 458 N.E.2d 87, 91.) The decision whether to allow a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea is within the sound discretion of the trial court; generally, such a motion is allowed if it appears that the plea resulted from a misapprehension of law or fact or as a result of a misrepresentation by counsel, the State's Attorney, or someone else in authority. ( People v. Paul (1981), 93 Ill. App.3d 302, 311, 417 N.E.2d 251, 258.
" "[M]istaken subjective impressions, in the absence of substantial objective proof showing that they were reasonably justified, do not provide sufficient grounds upon which to vacate a guilty plea." State v. Snyder, 10 Kan. App. 2d 450, 452, 701 P.2d 969 (1985) (quoting People v. Smithey, 120 Ill. App.3d 26, 33, 458 N.E.2d 87). We find no abuse of discretion in denying Shears' motion to withdraw his pleas.
¶ 11 A defendant's right to withdraw his guilty plea is not absolute, and he "bears the burden of demonstrating to the trial court the necessity of withdrawing his plea." People v. Artale, 244 Ill.App.3d 469, 475 (1993) (citing People v. Smithey, 120 Ill.App.3d 26, 31 (1983)). A defendant may withdraw his plea where (1) the plea was entered on a misapprehension of facts or law, (2) in consequence of misrepresentations by counsel or someone else in authority, (3) there is doubt of the defendant's guilt, (4) the defendant has a defense worthy of consideration, or (5) the ends of justice would be better served by a trial.
A defendant's right to withdraw his guilty plea is not absolute, and he "bears the burden of demonstrating to the trial court the necessity of withdrawing his plea." People v. Artale, 244 Ill. App. 3d 469, 475 (1993) (citing People v. Smithey, 120 Ill. App. 3d 26, 31 (1983)). "It is within the sound discretion of the trial court to determine whether a guilty plea may be withdrawn, and, on appeal, this decision will not be disturbed unless it is an abuse of that discretion."
People v. Hall, 217 Ill. 2d 324 (2005). ¶ 19 A defendant's right to withdraw his guilty plea is not absolute, and he "bears the burden of demonstrating to the trial court the necessity of withdrawing his plea." People v. Artale, 244 Ill. App. 3d 469, 475 (1993) (citing People v. Smithey, 120 Ill. App. 3d 26, 31 (1983)). Moreover, "[i]t is within the sound discretion of the trial court to determine whether a guilty plea may be withdrawn, and, on appeal, this decision will not be disturbed unless it is an abuse of that discretion."