¶ 50 Defendant's reliance on People v. Wigod, 406 Ill.App.3d 66, 76 (2010), is unavailing. In Wigod, the defendant entered a blind plea of guilty to the charge of failure to support following a continuance in his bench trial.
This error constitutes second-prong plain error as defendants have a due process right to be properly and fully admonished. See People v. Wigod, 406 Ill.App.3d 66, 75-76 (2010). In such instances, the proper remedy is to allow the defendant the opportunity to withdraw the plea.
The Rule 402 admonishments are designed to ensure that a defendant understands his plea, the rights he waives by pleading guilty, and the consequences of a guilty plea. People v. Dougherty, 394 Ill. App. 3d 134, 138 (2009). ¶ 14 In support of the defendant's position that he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea because the trial court failed to admonish him as to the possibility of restitution before accepting his plea, he cites People v. Snyder, 2011 IL 111382, and People v. Wigod, 406 Ill. App. 3d 66 (2010). In Snyder, our supreme court concluded that "the appropriate remedy for the trial court's failure to admonish defendant, who entered a partially negotiated guilty plea, as to the possibility that she would be ordered to pay restitution is to allow her the opportunity to withdraw her plea."
Because she did not do so, we lack jurisdiction to consider her claim.¶ 16 Defendant argues we may consider her claim as plain error, citing People v. Wigod, 406 Ill. App. 3d 66, 72-73, 940 N.E.2d 202, 208 (2010), and People v. Whitfield, 217 Ill. 2d 177, 188, 840 N.E.2d 658, 665-66 (2005). We disagree.
For the following reasons, we dismiss the appeal. ¶ 3 In August 2008, Wigod entered a blind guilty plea to a charge of failure to support (07 CR 8322). People v. Wigod, 406 Ill. App. 3d 66, 68-70 (2010). The trial court later sentenced him to 18 months in prison and ordered him to pay $85,802 in restitution.
However, as consecutive sentencing on that count may recur on remand, we will address the defendant's consecutive sentencing argument regarding this count. See People v. Wigod, 406 Ill.App.3d 66, 77 (2010).
Beacham, 231 Ill. 2d at 58; Adcock, 345 Ill. App. 3d at 1098 (the sole remedy under habeas corpus is a prisoner's immediate discharge from custody). Here, a finding that the trial court failed to properly admonish plaintiff would have, at most, resulted in a new proceeding at which he would receive the proper admonishments and be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. See, e.g., People v. Wigod, 406 Ill. App. 3d 66, 77 (2010). Such a finding would not have resulted in his immediate release from prison, even if he were still in prison.
The failure to admonish defendant of possible fines prior to ordering the payment fails to comply with Rule 402 (eff. July 1, 2012). People v. Wigod, 406 Ill. App. 3d 66, 74-77 (2010). However, an improper admonishment does not automatically establish grounds for vacating a plea; rather, defendant must show that he was prejudiced by the inadequate admonition.