Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Vaughn

November 25, 1998

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
RANDALL J. VAUGHN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Justice Steigmann

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT

Appeal from Circuit Court of Adams County

No. 95CF569

Honorable Mark A. Schuering, Judge Presiding.

In January 1996, defendant, Randall J. Vaughn, pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement in case No. 95-CF-569 to possession of a controlled substance (less than 15 grams of a substance containing cocaine) (720 ILCS 570/402(c) (West 1994)) and he was sentenced to 30 months' probation. Earlier during that same January 1996 proceeding and pursuant to the same plea agreement, defendant also pleaded guilty to aggravated battery and two counts of criminal sexual abuse. All of these charges arose in unrelated cases. The trial court sentenced defendant to 2½ years in prison on the aggravated battery conviction and 364 days in jail on each of the criminal sexual abuse convictions and ordered all of these sentences to run concurrently. The court then ordered defendant's sentence of probation in case No. 95-CF-569 to be served consecutively--that is, after defendant was released from prison on the other sentences.

In September 1997, the trial court found that defendant had violated a condition of probation and ordered his probation revoked. The court later sentenced him to an extended term of six years in prison and ordered defendant to pay for the services of his court-appointed counsel.

Defendant appeals, arguing that (1) his extended-term sentence is void because it is not authorized by law; and (2) the order directing defendant to pay for the services of his court-appointed counsel must be vacated and remanded because the trial court did not conduct the statutorily required hearing. We disagree with defendant's first argument but agree with his second. Thus, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand with directions.

I. BACKGROUND

On January 25, 1996, defendant pleaded guilty to count I in case No. 95-CF-331, charging him with aggravated battery (720 ILCS 5/12-4(b)(8) (West 1994)), count II in case No. 95-CF-401, charging him with criminal sexual abuse (720 ILCS 5/12-15(c) (West 1994)), and count I in case No. 95-CM-429, also charging him with criminal sexual abuse (720 ILCS 5/12-15(c) (West 1994)). The trial court sentenced him to 2½ years on the aggravated battery conviction, which is a Class 3 felony (720 ILCS 5/12-4(e) (West 1994)), and to 364 days in jail on each of the criminal sexual abuse convictions, which are Class A misdemeanors (720 ILCS 5/12-15(d) (West 1994)). The court ordered each of these sentences to run concurrently with the others.

During the same proceeding on January 25, 1996, and as part of the same plea agreement, defendant also pleaded guilty to count I of the charge in the present case, No. 95-CF-569, charging him with possession of a controlled substance, a Class 4 felony (720 ILCS 570/402(c) (West 1994)). During the guilty plea proceedings, the trial court admonished defendant regarding both consecutive and extended-term sentences. Specifically, the court informed defendant that, according to the plea agreement, (1) he was to be sentenced to probation on the drug conviction, and (2) his probationary sentence would run consecutively to the prison and jail sentences in the other three cases--that is, he would have to serve his probationary sentence once he was released from prison. See People v. Wendt, 163 Ill. 2d 346, 352, 645 N.E.2d 179, 182 (1994) (in which the supreme court held that a sentence of probation may be imposed consecutively to a prison sentence when the crimes underlying the convictions are unrelated. The court also explained to defendant that on his conviction in the drug case, he could be sentenced to an extended-term sentence of three to six years).

After carefully admonishing defendant regarding his understanding of the rights he was giving up and his willingness to do so, the trial court accepted his offers to plead guilty to all these charges. The court also specifically stated for the record that it was taking defendant's guilty plea on the aggravated battery conviction first so that defendant's conviction of possession of a controlled substance would be deemed the second conviction. As an additional precautionary step, the court accepted defendant's guilty pleas to aggravated battery and criminal sexual abuse and sentenced him for those crimes before the court sentenced defendant to probation for possession of a controlled substance.

Defendant was released from prison in March 1997, and shortly thereafter his probationary period started. In June 1997, the State filed a petition to revoke defendant's probation, alleging that he had violated a condition thereof by using cannabis. The trial court later conducted a hearing on that petition, found in the State's favor, and ordered defendant's probation revoked. In October 1997, the court resentenced defendant to an extended term of six years in prison. This appeal followed.

II. ANALYSIS

A. The Extended-Term ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.