People v. Mcintosh
Key Takeaways
- 1 Presentence custody credit not mentioned at plea acceptance is not a bargained-for term enforceable by defendant.
- 2 Under Stoffel, appellate courts lack authority to review a trial court's refusal to recharacterize a motion as a postconviction petition.
- 3 Relevant for criminal defense attorneys handling plea agreement disputes, sentencing credit claims, or postconviction recharacterization issues in Illinois.
Summary
Michael McIntosh pleaded guilty in 2006 to escape and residential burglary charges. Years later, he filed a pro se motion — later amended by counsel — seeking a corrected mittimus, arguing that 1,139 days of presentence custody credit was a bargained-for term of his plea agreement that IDOC failed to apply. He alternatively sought to vacate his plea or have the motion treated as a postconviction petition. The circuit court denied relief, finding the credit was not part of the plea agreement, and the First District affirmed.
On the central issue, the court applied the Whitfield principle that prosecutors must fulfill promises that form the basis of a guilty plea. Distinguishing cases like Lenoir, Clark, and McDermott — where specified credit was clearly a bargained-for term — the court found this case analogous to People v. Reeves. The record showed that when the court accepted McIntosh's plea, no mention of the 1,139 days of credit was made; the credit arose only after plea acceptance when defense counsel raised it at sentencing. Because plea terms are fixed at acceptance, not at sentencing, the credit was not part of the agreement. The court also noted that awarding the credit would constitute impermissible double credit under Latona.
On jurisdiction, the court found Rule 472 satisfied because the trial court treated the motion as one to correct the mittimus. On recharacterization, the court summarily rejected review under Stoffel's categorical bar.
Key Holdings
1. Presentence custody credit raised by defense counsel only after the court accepted a guilty plea is not a bargained-for term of the plea agreement and cannot be enforced as such under People v. Whitfield.
2. The terms of a plea agreement are fixed at the time the court accepts the plea, not at sentencing; credit mentioned post-acceptance does not become part of the agreement.
3. A trial court's decision not to recharacterize a defendant's pleading as a postconviction petition is unreviewable on appeal under People v. Stoffel, 239 Ill. 2d 314 (2010).
4. Appellate jurisdiction under Rule 472 is established where the trial court considered the defendant's motion as one to correct the mittimus and the defendant raised the sentencing credit claim in the circuit court, satisfying Rule 472(c).