THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS ex rel. ROBERT B. BERLIN, Petitioner,
HONORABLE GEORGE J. BAKALIS, Respondent.
JUSTICE KILBRIDE delivered the judgment of the court, with
opinion.Chief Justice Karmeier and Justices Freeman, Thomas,
Garman, Burke, and Theis concurred in the judgment and
1 Petitioner Robert B. Berlin, State's Attorney of Du
Page County, seeks mandamus pursuant to Illinois
Supreme Court Rule 381 (eff. July 1, 2017) against
respondent, the Honorable George J. Bakalis, judge of the
circuit court of Du Page County. Petitioner asks this court
to direct the circuit court to vacate defendant's
one-year term of mandatory supervised release (MSR) and
impose the mandatory four-year MSR term required under
section 5-8-1(d)(6) of the Unified Code of Corrections (730
ILCS 5/5-8-1(d)(6) (West 2014)). For the following reasons,
we award mandamus.
3 On September 22, 2015, defendant, Frank Gilio, entered a
partially negotiated guilty plea to one count of violating an
order of protection, a Class 4 felony based on his prior
conviction for violation of an order of protection (720 ILCS
5/12-3.4(d) (West 2014)). The parties did not agree to a
sentence in exchange for the plea, but the State agreed not
to prosecute two counts of aggravated battery of a peace
officer and a second count of violating an order of
4 Prior to entry of the plea, the trial court explained that
the charged offense was a Class 4 felony carrying a
sentencing range of one to six years' imprisonment. In
relevant part, the court misstated that the offense required
a one-year term of MSR. The court also admonished defendant
on his rights to a trial and the consequences of waiving
those rights and confirmed that he was pleading guilty
5 In presenting the factual basis for the plea, the State
noted that an order of protection had been entered and served
on defendant. The order of protection prohibited defendant
from contacting or being on the residential property of the
victim, Susan Foutch. It was effective from June 2013 through
June 2015. The victim would testify that on April 26, 2015,
while she was home, she observed defendant knock on her
window. Defendant stipulated that the State's witnesses
would testify substantially in that manner.
6 The trial court accepted the plea agreement and found
defendant guilty of violation of an order of protection. The
court then ordered a presentence investigation and scheduled
sentencing. After the sentencing hearing, the court sentenced
defendant to three years' imprisonment and one year of
7 At the State's request approximately a year later, the
trial court held a hearing on defendant's MSR term.
Defendant was present but not represented by counsel. At the
hearing, the following colloquy, in its entirety, occurred:
"MS. KING [(ASSISTANT STATE'S ATTORNEY)]: *** Judge,
I writ the defendant in. IDOC sent a letter indicating that
on the sentence order it had the incorrect term for MSR on
the defendant's sentence. He was sentenced to one year of
mandatory supervised release, but statutorily it should be
four years. So it was an incorrect sentence.
THE COURT: Okay. And it's four years because of the-
MS. KING: By statute because of the violation order.
THE COURT: Okay. [Defendant], do you understand what
they're telling you [that] you have?
DEFENDANT: Not really.
THE COURT: Apparently by statute I have no control ...