from the Circuit Court of Lake County. No. 11-CF-2453,
Honorable George Bridges, Judge, Presiding.
JUSTICE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Justices Birkett and Spence concurred in the judgment and
1 Defendant, Markie L. Skillom, appeals from the denial of
his motion to withdraw his plea of guilty to aggravated
robbery (720 ILCS 5/18-5(a) (West 2010)). He raises two
issues on appeal: (1) whether the trial court erred in
denying his motion to withdraw his plea without first
appointing new counsel to represent him on his claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel; and (2) whether he is
entitled to a credit of $5 per day spent in presentencing
custody against $95.71 in certain fines. For the reasons that
follow, we find that, although the trial court erred in
failing to inquire into defendant's
ineffective-assistance claim in a neutral and nonadversarial
proceeding, the error was harmless. We also find that
defendant is entitled to a $2830 credit for time spent in
presentencing custody, which is sufficient to offset the
fines at issue. Accordingly, we modify the trial court's
sentencing order to reflect that these fines have been
satisfied, and we affirm.
2 I. BACKGROUND
3 On August 17, 2011, defendant was charged with aggravated
vehicular hijacking (720 ILCS 5/18-4(a)(1) (West 2010)),
vehicular hijacking (720 ILCS 5/18-3(a) (West 2010)),
aggravated robbery (720 ILCS 5/18-5(a) (West 2010)), unlawful
possession of a stolen motor vehicle (625 ILCS 5/4-103(a)(1)
(West 2010)), and robbery (720 ILCS 5/18-1(a) (West 2010)).
4 On August 6, 2012, defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated
robbery, a Class 1 felony. At the outset of the plea hearing,
the following colloquy occurred:
"[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, I believe we have a
negotiation to present.
[THE STATE]: Your Honor, the defendant would enter an open
plea to Count 3, which is a Class 1 aggravated robbery. The
defendant does have two prior Class 2s in his background. He
was arraigned on that and advised of that, so he will receive
a Class X sentence. We didn't do a cost sheet on this
because I assume that when he gets sentenced is when we do
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, [defendant] and I have met,
both Saturday and early this morning, to discuss the case.
The State has indicated it's ready, that it had all of
its witnesses. So he and I also this morning have discussed
the Class X sentencing aspect of the case.
THE COURT: You're [defendant]; is that correct? THE
DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: [Defendant], did you hear what was just
represented to the Court as being the negotiation?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: And that is the negotiation that I was just
advised of, is you're pleading guilty to Count 3,
aggravated robbery, a Class 1 felony, but, however, you are
to be sentenced as a Class X felon for this offense. And is
that your understanding of what you're pleading guilty
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
* * *
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, [defendant] did have a
question. I know the Court advised him-not about the waiver
of trial, per se, but I know the Court advised him about
being a Class X case. But I think I want it to be clear that
[defendant] and I- and your Honor, if you have any
questions-have discussed the fact that, with a Class X
sentence, it is not a probabtionable [sic] or drug
court type of offense.
THE COURT: So I don't understand. What is the question?
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Judge, just so I understand it, since this
is a Class X sentence, it is not probationable. I think he
was advised of that, but he was asking me a little bit about
that. So I don't know if the Court has any more
THE COURT: I want to make sure I understand. What is the
question? Is it a probationable offense?
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Yes.
THE COURT: That's your question, [defendant]?
THE DEFENDANT: Yeah. I understand it was dropped down to a
Class 1, which is 4 to 15, and I was asking about that,
because that's what he had told me earlier. But now
he's saying that, because of the background, it stays a
Class X or whatever. That's what I'm trying to
THE COURT: No. No.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: And when [defendant] says now, he
doesn't mean the bench. He means when we were talking ...