Criminal Defendant Denied Motion to Withdraw His Guilty Plea
An Illinois appellate court examined whether alleged promises by defense counsel and concerns about a plea agreement were enough to invalidate a guilty plea under Supreme Court Rule 402.
In People v. Balfour, the defendant asked an Illinois appellate court to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea to aggravated battery by means of discharging a firearm. He argued that his defense attorney had misrepresented important aspects of the plea arrangement, including an alleged agreement for a seven-day furlough. He also claimed that his attorney pressured him into accepting the plea by telling him he could face a lengthy sentence on an attempted murder charge and failed to adequately investigate a potential self-defense claim.
Case: People v. Balfour, 2023 IL App (5th) 210092-U
Court: Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District
Decision: July 5, 2023
Important: The decision was filed under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and is nonprecedential except in the limited circumstances permitted by that rule.
What Was the Defendant’s Argument?
Kenny Balfour pleaded guilty to aggravated battery by means of discharging a firearm. He later sought to withdraw that plea, arguing that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made.
According to the allegations raised in his motion to withdraw the plea, Balfour’s attorney told him that the State had agreed to a seven-day furlough as part of the plea arrangement. He also alleged that counsel told him he could receive a 29-year prison sentence if he rejected the plea and was later convicted of attempted murder.
Balfour further alleged that he had information supporting a self-defense claim and that his attorney did not investigate that claim before advising him to accept the plea.
The Furlough
Balfour claimed he was told that a seven-day furlough was part of the agreement with the State.
The Sentencing Advice
He alleged that counsel told him he could face 29 years if he did not accept the plea.
Self-Defense
Balfour also claimed that counsel failed to investigate evidence supporting his position that he acted in self-defense.
What Is Illinois Supreme Court Rule 402?
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 402 establishes requirements that must be substantially complied with before a court accepts a guilty plea. The rule is designed to make sure a defendant understands the charge, the potential sentence, the rights being waived by pleading guilty, and the terms of any plea agreement.
Under Rule 402(a), the court must personally address the defendant in open court and determine that the defendant understands the nature of the charge, the minimum and maximum sentence prescribed by law, the right to plead not guilty, and the fact that pleading guilty waives the right to a trial and the right to confront witnesses.
Rule 402(b) also requires the court to determine that the plea is voluntary. When a plea is based on an agreement, the agreement must be stated in open court, and the court must personally question the defendant to confirm its terms and determine whether force, threats, or promises apart from the plea agreement were used to obtain the plea.
The Key Point About Rule 402
The plea hearing becomes an important part of the record. What the defendant is told in open court, what the defendant says under oath, and what the court confirms about the plea agreement can become highly significant if the defendant later asks to withdraw the guilty plea.
What Happened During Balfour’s Guilty Plea?
Balfour was charged after the State alleged that he shot Cody Gates in the abdomen with a .40-caliber handgun.
On January 6, 2021, Balfour entered a negotiated guilty plea to aggravated battery by means of discharging a firearm. In exchange for his plea, the State agreed not to file additional charges arising from the incident, including attempted murder, and agreed to recommend an 11-year prison sentence followed by three years of mandatory supervised release.
The Plea Agreement in the Record
Guilty Plea
Aggravated battery by means of discharging a firearm.
State’s Recommendation
11 years in prison followed by 3 years of MSR.
Additional Charges
The State agreed not to file additional charges from the incident, including attempted murder.
The trial court informed Balfour of the sentencing range and the rights he would give up by pleading guilty. The court also asked whether anyone had forced or threatened him into pleading guilty and whether anyone had promised him anything other than the terms of the plea agreement. Balfour answered no.
The court then asked whether pleading guilty was his free and voluntary act. Balfour answered yes, and the trial court found that his plea was knowingly and voluntarily made.
What About the Alleged Seven-Day Furlough?
One of Balfour’s arguments was that his attorney had told him and his family that the State had agreed to a seven-day furlough. After the plea was entered, however, defense counsel requested that the mittimus be stayed for seven days so Balfour could spend time with his siblings.
The State opposed the request and indicated that it had not agreed to the furlough. The trial court denied the request.
Why Did This Matter?
The appellate court focused on what was actually placed on the record during the plea hearing. The seven-day furlough was not stated as a term of the plea agreement. The court therefore concluded that the record contradicted Balfour’s claim that the furlough was part of the agreement with the State.
What About the Alleged 29-Year Sentence?
Balfour also alleged that his attorney told him he would receive a 29-year sentence if he rejected the plea and was convicted of attempted murder.
The appellate court noted that the State had agreed not to file an attempted murder charge as part of the negotiated plea. The court also noted that, according to the State’s position in the appeal, an attempted murder conviction in this case would have carried a minimum sentence of 26 years followed by three years of mandatory supervised release.
A Plea Agreement Can Eliminate More Serious Charges
In Balfour’s case, one of the terms of the negotiated plea was that the State would not file additional charges arising from the incident, including attempted murder. The appellate court rejected Balfour’s argument because the record showed that this benefit was part of the plea agreement itself.
Why Did the Appellate Court Reject the Motion to Withdraw the Plea?
The Fifth District Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. The court explained that a defendant does not have an absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea. Instead, a defendant must establish sufficient grounds for withdrawal, and a plea may be withdrawn where the circumstances establish a manifest injustice.
The appellate court emphasized that the plea hearing record showed that Balfour was advised of the terms of the agreement, the consequences of pleading guilty, and the applicable sentencing range. He also confirmed in open court that no one had forced or threatened him into pleading guilty and that no one had made promises outside the plea agreement.
The Agreement Was Stated
The terms of the negotiated plea were placed on the record in open court.
The Defendant Confirmed It
Balfour indicated that he understood the plea and confirmed that no outside promises or threats caused him to plead guilty.
The Record Contradicted His Claims
The appellate court found that the record did not support the later allegations about the furlough and coercion.
What Did the Court Say About the Self-Defense Claim?
Balfour also alleged that he had evidence supporting a self-defense claim and that his attorney failed to investigate it before advising him to accept the plea.
The appellate court rejected this argument in the context of the motion to withdraw the plea because Balfour provided no supporting evidence beyond his own affidavit and did not provide details establishing the substance of the alleged self-defense evidence. The court also noted that he had not framed this particular argument as an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim.
The Record Matters
A defendant seeking to withdraw a guilty plea generally needs more than a later disagreement with the advice that was given before the plea. The evidence and record supporting the claim can become critical when a court reviews whether the plea was knowing and voluntary.
What Does People v. Balfour Mean for Guilty Pleas in Illinois?
People v. Balfour demonstrates why the plea colloquy and the written and oral terms of a plea agreement can become extremely important when a defendant later seeks to withdraw a guilty plea.
The decision does not mean that a guilty plea can never be withdrawn. Illinois law recognizes circumstances in which withdrawal may be appropriate, including situations involving a misunderstanding of the facts or law or other circumstances creating a manifest injustice. Instead, Balfour illustrates that the defendant must have a sufficient factual and legal basis for seeking withdrawal.
It is also important to distinguish a disagreement with defense counsel’s advice from a violation of the plea agreement itself. In Balfour, the appellate court focused heavily on the statements made during the plea hearing and the terms that were actually placed on the record.
Talk to a Decatur Criminal Defense Lawyer
If you are facing criminal charges in Illinois, the decisions made before entering a guilty plea can have long-term consequences. A negotiated plea may resolve certain charges or limit potential sentencing exposure, but it is important to understand exactly what the agreement requires and what rights are being waived.
Patel Law, PC represents people facing criminal charges in Illinois. Our Decatur criminal defense lawyers can help you understand your charges, evaluate the evidence, and discuss your legal options before making decisions about a plea.
Facing Criminal Charges in Illinois?
Talk with a Decatur criminal defense lawyer about your case and your legal options.
Sources
