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. Gabrys

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Third District

November 14, 2013

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RICHARD GABRYS, Defendant-Appellant.

Held[*]

The denial of defendant’s motions to withdraw his guilty plea to criminal damage to property was reversed and the cause was remanded with directions to allow defense counsel to file a new Supreme Court Rule 604(d) certificate and to allow the opportunity for the filing of a new motion to withdraw defendant’s guilty plea, if necessary, and a new hearing on the motion to withdraw the guilty plea, since defense counsel’s filing of her Rule 604(d) certificate after defendant’s notice of appeal from the denial of his motions to withdraw his guilty plea was filed did not strictly comply with Rule 604(d).

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Will County, No. 07-CF-2471; the Hon. Amy Bertani-Tomczak, Judge, presiding.

Benjamin A. Wolowski (argued), of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.

James W. Glasgow, State’s Attorney, of Joliet (Robert M. Hansen (argued), of State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s Office, of counsel), for the People.

Justices McDade and Schmidt concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION

CARTER, JUSTICE

¶1 The defendant, Richard Gabrys, pled guilty to criminal damage to property (720 ILCS 5/21-1(1)(a) (West 2006)) and was sentenced to 24 months of probation and 180 days in jail. On appeal, the defendant argues that: (1) the circuit court erred when it denied his motions to withdraw his guilty plea because defense counsel labored under a conflict of interest when representing the defendant on his motions; and (2) defense counsel failed to strictly comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (eff. July 1, 2006). We vacate the circuit court's judgments on the motions to withdraw the guilty plea and remand with directions.

¶2 FACTS

¶3 On January 4, 2008, the defendant was charged by indictment with three counts of Class 4 felony criminal damage to property (720 ILCS 5/21-1(1)(a) (West 2006)) and one count of Class A misdemeanor criminal damage to property (720 ILCS 5/21-1(1)(a) (West 2006)). The indictment alleged that on four separate occasions in 2007, the defendant damaged a backyard lawn, a front door, a garage door, and a gas grill belonging to Donald Gasparic.

¶4 In June 2008, the defendant, through counsel, filed a motion to suppress statements the defendant made to police. The defendant made these statements at the hospital on October 28, 2007, where he was being treated for three gunshot wounds inflicted by Gasparic. The motion alleged that the defendant was on at least seven medications, including morphine, at the time he gave those statements.

¶5 Several public defenders appeared on behalf of the defendant during the pendency of pretrial matters. Assistant Public Defender Shenonda Tisdale first appeared on September 23, 2009. It appears from the record that from that date forward, Tisdale was the defendant's attorney.

¶6 After a hearing was held on the defendant's motion to suppress, the circuit court granted the motion on February 15, 2011.

¶7 On April 11, 2011, the case was called for trial. The State informed the circuit court that it was dropping all charges except one charge of Class 4 criminal damage to property. After a recess, defense counsel told the court that the defendant decided to plead guilty to the one count of Class 4 criminal damage to property. She stated that there was no plea agreement.

ΒΆ8 During guilty-plea admonishments, the court asked the defendant if he was on any medications. The defendant stated he was on medication for anxiety and depression, and that he took another medication to help him sleep. The defendant said that those medications did not ...


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.