No. 1-14-0036 Opinion filed December 31, 2015

FIFTH DIVISION

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIRST DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ILLINOIS, ) of Cook County.

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) v. ) No. 08 CR 20482 ) LAMARR MAXEY, ) The Honorable ) Timothy Joseph Joyce, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding.

JUSTICE GORDON delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Presiding Justice Reyes and Justice Palmer concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION

¶1 Defendant Lamarr Maxey pled guilty to attempted aggravated robbery and

was sentenced to 11 years with the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC). No. 1-14-0036

¶2 On this direct appeal, defendant asks us to vacate as void a prior bond order.

Specifically, defendant argues that the trial court erroneously placed him on

bond during a prior appeal by the State, although Illinois Supreme Court Rule

604(a)(3) provides that "[a] defendant shall not be held in jail or to bail during

the pendency of an appeal by the State." Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(a)(3) (eff. Dec. 11,

2014). 1 As a result of this order, defendant received consecutive sentences in

another case. Section 5-8-4(d)(8) of the Unified Code of Corrections (Code)

provides that, "[i]f a person charged with a felony commits a separate felony

while on pretrial release *** then the sentences imposed upon conviction of

these felonies shall be served consecutively regardless of the order in which the

judgments of conviction are entered." 730 ILCS 5/5-8-4 (West 2014).

¶3 Defendant asks us to declare the prior bond order void and to vacate the

consecutive sentences entered in the other case, which is not before us on this

appeal. For the following reasons, we do not find defendant's arguments on this

issue persuasive.

¶4 In the alternative, defendant asks us to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea

in the case at bar, because it was allegedly based on a misunderstanding that his

guilty plea would not prevent him from subsequently challenging the prior bond

1 Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604 was amended effective December 3, 2015. However, this amendment had no effect on the sections which we quote in this opinion. 2 No. 1-14-0036

on appeal. Again, for the reasons explained below, we are not persuaded by

defendant's argument.

¶5 Lastly, defendant asks us to correct the mittimus to reflect the 1,045 days of

credit served. In response, the State asks us to reduce the days of credit to 951

days. Pursuant to our supreme court's decision issued last month in People v.

Castleberry,

, we must deny the State's request. We do order

the mittimus corrected to reflect the trial court's order.

¶6 BACKGROUND

¶7 Since the issue before us is purely procedural, we provide here the

procedural history of the case below.

¶8 After being indicted for attempt aggravated robbery, defendant filed a

motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence. After an evidentiary hearing, the

trial court granted defendant's motion on October 7, 2009. On November 4,

2009, the parties appeared in court and the State indicated its intent to file, on

the same day, a certificate of substantial impairment and notice of appeal.

Defense counsel "object[ed] to the filing of that" and also "ask[ed] for an appeal

bond because *** this [could] take[] two years while it pends." The parties

then agreed to a continuance to November 10, 2009. As it stated it would do,

the State filed both a notice of appeal and a certificate of substantial impairment

on November 4, 2009.

3 No. 1-14-0036

¶9 On November 10, 2009, the parties agreed to another short continuance,

and appeared again on November 24, 2009. The State argued that the trial court

lacked jurisdiction to reconsider its ruling on defendant's motion, and that the

appeal had to proceed. Defense counsel responded: "I would ask you to set

that $10,000 I-bond,[ 2] as this case could linger for several years before

ultimately being resolved in Mr. Maxey's favor and it is punitive to hold him in

custody while waiting that verdict."

¶ 10 Defense counsel then paraphrased Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(a)(3)

(eff. Dec. 11, 2014), stating: "The defendant shall not be held in jail or to bail

during pending [sic] a pendency of an appeal by the State or of a petition or

appeal by the State under Rule 315 A, unless there are compelling reasons for

his or her continued detention or being held for bail."

¶ 11 The assistant State's Attorney (ASA) then responded: "I think I gave you

compelling reasons." However, the trial court held: "I don't think so." The

court then instructed defense counsel: "Draft the order." To which, defense

counsel responded: "Yes, sir."

¶ 12 The half-sheet entry for November 24, 2009, states: "PD (Vern) State Files

Certificate of Impairment nunc pro tunc 11/01/09[.] [B]ail set at $10,000 I Bond

2 An I-bond is a recognizance bond. 4 No. 1-14-0036

# 6698202 off call." An order, dated November 24, 2009, also stated: "Bail set

at $10,000 I Bond # 6698202."

¶ 13 While the State's appeal was pending, defendant was arrested in another case

(No. 11 CR 07414-01). On May 27, 2011, this court reversed the trial court's

grant of defendant's motion to quash and suppress evidence and remanded for

further proceedings in the case on appeal before us (No. 08 CR 20482). People

v. Maxey,

. On December 20, 2012, after a bench

trial, defendant was found guilty in case No. 11 CR 07414-01 of aggravated

fleeing and eluding and residential burglary. 3 The sentencing was scheduled for

a later date.

¶ 14 Prior to defendant's sentencing in case No. 11 CR 07414-01, the parties

appeared in court in case No. 08 CR 20482 on January 10, 2013, and defense

counsel filed a motion to vacate the bond in case No. 08 CR 20482, which had

been entered several years earlier in 2009. The trial court denied the motion,

holding: "I do not think that Rule 604 *** requires, quote, compelling reasons,

unquote, for someone to be held on an I-bond or on a recognizance bond."

¶ 15 The trial court further stated: "And pending resolution of this case, if it

comes up to argue this again, should he be found guilty of this offense, you can

make whatever argument you see fit on his behalf, but I agree you are entitled 3 Case No. 11 CR 07414-01 is currently pending on appeal before another division of this court in appeal No. 1-13-698. 5 No. 1-14-0036

to have a decision now in order to make whatever decisions you want to make

hereafter."

¶ 16 Then the parties proceeded to discuss the pending plea offer from the State

and defendant's pending suppression motion. The trial court described the

State's plea offer of 11 years as "extremely generous," in light of the 6 to 30

year sentencing range and defendant's lengthy criminal history. Defense counsel

stated that defendant wanted to know if they could proceed on the suppression

motion and then, if it was denied, could he still accept the State's plea offer of

11 years. The court responded: "If he wants the 11, he can have the 11 right

now. If he wishes to reject the 11, and you're absolutely entitled to reject the

11, but we are going to fish or cut bait, which means we're going to make a

decision."

¶ 17 The parties went off the record and then the following colloquy between

defendant and the trial court ensued on the record:

"DEFENDANT: Your Honor, I just feel like, you know, the caselaw

and everything, you know, based on Supreme Court Rule 604(a)(3), you

know, I was supposed to be released unconditionally. I mean, bail is bail,

you know.

And as [the other trial judge] stated on the 24th of November when he

let me go, he said–[ASA] asked a compelling reason. He said I don't

6 No. 1-14-0036

think so. I mean, you read the transcript. You know, I'm saying absent a

compelling reason, you know, I was entitled to unconditional release

under [Rule] 604(a)(3). And I feel like–you know, I understand that I

was out on bond and–I mean, I was out on bond, but if I got my

unconditional release, I wouldn't have–you know, I wouldn't be out on

bond. So that's why I just don't feel like, you know, a consecutive

sentence is in order, you know, based on the fact that I was out on a bond

that I shouldn't have been out on, you know.

THE COURT: I appreciate that, that is the effect of the ruling. I got

that, Mr. Maxey. I didn't not take that seriously. I understand fully its

importance–

DEFENDANT: I want to also–

THE COURT: Go ahead.

DEFENDANT: I also want to ask, you know, by me pleading guilty,

is this issue moot now? I mean, can I under [sic] blame error of the

Supreme Court Rules–I mean, am I able to bring this back up? Because I

feel this is a plain error that I was released on bond in the first place. I

mean, the Supreme Court Rule, it's clear. They say unless compelling

reasons, and the burden was on the State to submit these compelling

reasons. The Judge ruled. And you read the transcript. He said no

7 No. 1-14-0036

compelling reason, I don't think so. I mean, those are the exact four

words he spoke, I don't think so. [ASA] asked him, your Honor, I think,

based on the transcripts, she said I offered compelling reasons. [The

other trial judge] pointblank said I don't think so.

So I'm saying there were no compelling reasons at the time. So based

upon no compelling reasons at the time, why am I out on bond if the rule

is clear, you know? Not to be held to bail or held pending, you know,

unless a compelling reason–compelling reasons exist. It's just the plain

language of the statute–I mean, the rule suggests that I wasn't supposed to

be held–I wasn't supposed to be held to bail.

THE COURT: I'm not going to give you legal advice about what

course you want to take. If you plead guilty, if I accept the plea of guilty

and make a finding that it is voluntarily, freely and knowingly made, I

anticipate I will go along with the sentencing recommendation that I

made, which was 11 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections for

this offense.

I am not making it consecutive to any other sentence, because there is

no other sentence that you're serving at this time. So I can't say that this

sentence will be consecutive to some other sentence. I don't do that.

You're not serving some other sentence at this time that I will say this

8 No. 1-14-0036

sentence will be concurrent or this sentence will be consecutive. I'm just

going to sentence you today.

DEFENDANT: Oh, okay. One more thing. By me raising this

motion here in your courtroom, that doesn't prevent me from raising it

also in [case No. 11 CR 07414-01], does it?

THE COURT: I'm not giving you any legal advice. What do you

want to do?

DEFENDANT: I'm going to sign the paper.

THE COURT: Excuse me?

DEFENDANT: I will sign the paper.

THE COURT: You mean you wish to plead guilty?

DEFENDANT: Yes."

¶ 18 Defendant then pled guilty. Prior to sentencing, the trial court asked

defendant if there was "[a]nything [he] wished to say," and defendant replied:

"I would just like to reiterate, you know, I feel like I shouldn't have been held to

bond on this case. It was an error for me to be put out on bond. Basically, I was

eligible for unconditional release." The trial court then sentenced defendant to

11 years with IDOC, plus three years of mandatory supervised release, with

credit for 1,044 days served. The trial court then informed defendant of his

9 No. 1-14-0036

appeal rights, stating that he had to first file in the trial court a written motion

within 30 days if he wished to withdraw his guilty plea.

¶ 19 Thus, defendant pled guilty and was sentenced in the case at bar on January

10, 2013. Less than 30 days later, on February 5, 2013, defendant filed a pro se

motion to withdraw his guilty plea in case no. 08 CR 20482. Defendant raised a

number of issues, including that he received ineffective assistance of counsel

"in that he was mislead [sic] into believing that he would be able to appeal

various pre-trial rulings to the appellate court regardless of his guilty plea which

he knows 'now' to be untrue." He also stated that his counsel was "ineffective

when on January 10, 2015, he sought before *** the circuit court Defendant's

Motion to Vacate Prior Bond knowing very well that he had requested Nov. 24,

2009 this bond due to his lack of knowledge and his apprehension of Supreme

Court Rule 604(a)(3) on the same day (see court transcript for that day). He was

also ineffective *** in that he could have raised my issue about defendant's

bond pursuant to Ill. Supreme Court Rule 604(c) Appeals From Bail Orders by

Defendant Before Conviction which then would have been appealable to the

Appellate Ct."

¶ 20 On February 27, 2013, in case No. 11 CR 07414-01, defendant was

sentenced to 20 years and 3 years, respectively, for residential burglary and

aggravated fleeing and eluding. These two sentences ran concurrently to each

10 No. 1-14-0036

other but consecutive to the 11 year sentence imposed in the case at bar (No. 08

CR 20482).

¶ 21 In response to defendant's motion to vacate his plea, the trial court appointed

counsel, and appointed counsel filed a supplemental motion on September 5,

2013. The supplemental motion made several claims, including that defendant's

guilty plea was based on a misapprehension of the law, in that he did not

understand that his guilty plea would bar him from appealing the denial of his

motion to vacate his prior bond. On October 3, 2015, counsel filed an

"Addendum to Supplemental Motion to Vacate Guilty Plea," which added

claims that are not at issue on this appeal.

¶ 22 On December 17, 2013, the trial court denied defendant's motion to vacate

his plea, finding that his plea was voluntarily made. The court observed:

"THE COURT: There is nothing that the Court said or did that would

have led Mr. Maxey to believe he had a right to appeal the propriety of

rulings in that regard.

And as the State points out, and as I think my questions alluded to

earlier, the question of whether Mr. Maxey was on bond or not at the

time he committed the second offense was completely, totally, absolutely

irrelevant then and irrelevant now because this was the first case that got

11 No. 1-14-0036

resolved. So the issue of whether he was on bond or not is simply not an

[sic] justiciable issue for this Court to resolve, not then and not now."

¶ 23 The trial court also granted defendant's motion to correct the mittimus, to

which the State had no objection. The court granted defendant an additional

day's credit, for a total of 1,045 days considered served, which was entered

nunc pro tunc to the date of the guilty plea.

¶ 24 On December 17, 2013, defendant filed a notice of appeal in the case at bar

(No. 08 CR 20482) appealing the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to

withdraw his guilty plea.

¶ 25 The notice of appeal in case No. 11 CR 07414-01 was filed on March 9,

2013. Over two years later, on October 13, 2015, the State filed a motion in that

appeal to consolidate it with the appeal now before us. On October 19, 2015,

a different division of this court denied the State's motion to consolidate. On

November 12, 2015, that division heard oral argument, but it has not yet issued

a decision.

¶ 26 ANALYSIS

¶ 27 On this direct appeal, defendant raises three claims: (1) that the prior

order granting defendant an I-bond during a prior appeal must be vacated as

void; (2) that the trial court should have allowed defendant to withdraw his

guilty plea because he did not understand that his guilty plea would preclude

12 No. 1-14-0036

him from his challenging his bond on appeal; and (3) that the mittiums should

be corrected. For the reasons explained below, we order the mittimus corrected.

However, we do not find defendant's other arguments persuasive and we affirm

the defendant's judgment and conviction.

¶ 28 I. The Bond Order

¶ 29 First, defendant asks us to vacate as void the bond order issued during a

prior appeal in this case, and to vacate the consecutive sentences that were

imposed in a different case as a result of the bond order.

¶ 30 In response, the State argues that the sole procedure for vacating a bond

order is set forth in Supreme Court Rule 604, and the time for appealing the

order has passed. The rule specifically provides that an appeal "may be taken at

any time before conviction" (emphasis added) (Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(c) (eff. Dec.

11, 2014)), and there is no dispute that defendant did not appeal the bond prior

to conviction.

¶ 31 The issue of whether the applicable Supreme Court Rules permit the appeal

in this case is a question of statutory interpretation, which we review de novo.

In re Michael D.,

, ¶ 9. "The same rules of construction apply to

both" statutes and Supreme Court Rules. In re Michael D.,

, ¶ 9.

Our primary objective is to give effect to the drafters' intent, which is best

indicated by the plain language of the statue. In re Michael D.,

,

13 No. 1-14-0036

¶ 9. De novo review means that the reviewing court performs the same analysis

that a trial judge would perform. A.M. Realty Western L.L.C. v. MSMC Realty

L.L.C.,

.

¶ 32 Supreme Court Rule 604(c) provides in relevant part:

"(1) Appealability of Order With Respect to Bail. Before conviction a

defendant may appeal to the Appellate Court from an order setting,

modifying, revoking, denying, or refusing to modify bail or the

conditions thereof. As a prerequisite to appeal the defendant shall first

present to the trial court a written motion for the relief to be sought on

appeal. ***

(2) Procedure. The appeal may be taken at any time before

conviction by filing a verified motion for review in the Appellate Court.

***" Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(c) (eff. Dec. 11, 2014).

¶ 33 There is also no dispute that defendant did not utilize Rule 604(c)'s

procedure for appealing an order setting "bail or the conditions thereof." Ill. S.

Ct. R. 604(c) (eff. Dec. 11, 2014). Defendant's primary argument to this court is

that the I-bond in this case constituted "bail" in violation of another part of Rule

604, namely subsection (a)(3), which prohibits holding defendant "to bail

during the pendency of an appeal by the State." Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(a)(3) (eff.

Dec. 11, 2014). If defendant is correct and the I-bond constituted "bail" within

14 No. 1-14-0036

the meaning of Rule 604(a)(3), then this same rule also required him to file his

motion for review "before conviction" (Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(c) (eff. Dec. 11,

2014)). If defendant is not correct and the I-bond did not constitute "bail" as the

State contends, then his claim fails on the merits, because he then would not

have been "held to bail" in violation of the rule. Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(a)(3) (eff.

Dec. 11, 2014). Either way, his claim fails. See Maksym v. Board of Election

Commissioners,

(2011) (" '[W]here the same, or

substantially the same, words or phrases appear in different parts of the same

statute they will be given a generally accepted and consistent meaning, where

the legislative intent is not clearly expressed to the contrary.' " (quoting Moran

v. Katsinas,

(1959))); Chultem v. Ticor Title Insurance Co.,

, ¶ 33 (" 'use of the same words or phrases in different

sections of [a] statute should be given a consistent meaning' " (quoting Clardy

v. Rapistan Division of Lear Siegler, Inc.,

(1993))).

¶ 34 In response, defendant argues, first, that "[t]he State contradicts itself on this

point, since it claims elsewhere that the bond determination did not set 'bail.'

[Citation.] The State then faults [defendant] for not pursuing an avenue that, by

the State's logic, was unavailable to him." However, as we explained above, it

is the defendant's logic which bars his claim. If we agree with defendant that

15 No. 1-14-0036

the I-bond did, in fact, constitute bail for purposes of Rule 604, then we must

also conclude that his claim was not timely pursuant to Rule 604.

¶ 35 Defendant cites in support People v. Beaty,

(2004),

which stated, without any citation or support, that: "Orders appealable under

Supreme Court Rule 604(c)(1)–orders 'setting, modifying, revoking, denying, or

refusing to modify bail or the condition thereof' (188 Ill. 2d R. 604(c)(1))–are

different from an order applying the standard set forth in Supreme Court Rule

604(a)(3)–an order which denies the unconditional release pending an appeal

that Supreme Court Rule normally affords." Even if we found this unsupported

dicta persuasive, its language does not apply to the case at bar. Unlike Beaty,

this is not a case where the trial court "denie[d]" defendant "the unconditional

release" which he sought. Beaty,

; see also Beaty,

(defense counsel filed a motion for defendant's immediate

release which the trial court denied based on a finding of compelling reasons).

By contrast, in the case at bar, the trial court granted defendant's request for an

I-bond and directed defense counsel to draft the order.

¶ 36 In addition, Beaty was in a different procedural posture from the case at

bar. In Beaty, the defendant sought to appeal his bond order as part of the

State's interlocutory appeal from the adverse evidentiary ruling (Beaty,

), and the Beaty court permitted the defendant to do that (Beaty,

16 No. 1-14-0036

). By contrast, in the case at bar, defendant asks us to

consider the validity of his bond when the appeal to which it pertained is now

over. For all these reasons, we do not find Beaty apposite to our case.

¶ 37 Defendant argues further that, even if the procedure outlined in Rule 604(c)

applied to his claim, "nothing in the rules for direct appeals bars challenges to

bond determinations," and defendant cites in support the Illinois Supreme

Court's decision in People v. Bailey,

(1995), where the

court did discuss a bail issue on direct appeal. However, in Bailey, the supreme

court acknowledged that, although the defendant's claims about the trial court's

denial of bail may have been both untimely under Rule 604 and moot, it

decided to address his claims because addressing them would advance the

"public interest" in clarifying whether a particular statue was constitutional.

Bailey,

. In the case at bar, defendant makes no argument that

deciding his claim will advance the public interest.

¶ 38 The State claims that, since defendant failed to follow the procedure outlined

in Rule 604(c), we lack jurisdiction to consider his claim. However, we are not

barred from considering an order that was a necessary step to the order at issue

before us (Filliung v. Adams,

(2008)); and our supreme

court in Bailey exercised its discretion to hear defendant's bail issue, even

though it may have been untimely under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(c).

17 No. 1-14-

Ill. 2d at 238. Thus, we conclude that we have jurisdiction.

However, we are not persuaded, as our supreme court was in Bailey, that there

is good reason to consider defendant's untimely claim in this appeal. See Bailey,

. Defendant's ultimate goal is to vacate the consecutive

sentences ordered in another case—not in the case at bar. In essence, we are

being asked to render an advisory opinion, which would have no impact in the

case at bar, but which could effect the sentences in another case currently

pending on direct appeal. In re Alfred H.H.,

(2009) (as a

general rule, Illinois courts do not render advisory opinions or consider issues

where the outcome of the case will not be affected regardless of how those

issues are decided). Under these unusual circumstances, we do not find good

cause in this case to overlook the untimeliness of defendant's motion to vacate

his bond, which was filed several years late. Our decision here, however, does

not bind the hands of another court considering different cases or claims.

¶ 39 Defendant argues that the bond order is void and may be attacked at any

time. Previously our supreme court recognized a "type of voidness challenge"

which was "a challenge to a sentence that did not conform to the applicable

sentencing statute." People v. Thompson,

, ¶ 33. "This type of

challenge [was] based on the 'void sentence rule' from People v. Arna,

(1995), holding that a sentence that does not conform to a statutory

18 No. 1-14-0036

requirement is void." Thompson,

, ¶ 33. However, last month

and after the briefs were filed in this appeal, 4 our supreme court "abolished the

void sentence rule." Thompson,

, ¶ 33 (citing People v.

Castleberry,

). "Consequently, that type of challenge is

no longer valid." Thompson,

, ¶ 33.

¶ 40 II. Withdraw Guilty Plea

¶ 41 In the alternative, defendant asks this court to allow him to withdraw his

guilty plea because it was based on a misunderstanding. He claims that he did

not understand that his plea could preclude him from challenging the validity of

his prior bond on this appeal.

¶ 42 "Leave to withdraw a plea of guilty is not granted as a matter of right, but as

required to correct a manifest injustice under the facts involved." People v.

Spriggle,

(2005); see also People v. Hughes,

("A defendant has no absolute right to withdraw his guilty plea.").

Generally, the decision whether to allow a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea

pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 604(d) is left to the sound discretion of the trial

court and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion.

Hughes,

. "An abuse of discretion occurs only when the

4 The reply brief in the instant appeal was filed November 10, 2015; and our supreme court's opinion in Castleberry,

, was issued just nine days later, on November 19, 2015. 19 No. 1-14-0036

trial court's decision is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable or where no

reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court." Seymour v.

Collins,

.

¶ 43 A defendant may seek to withdraw his or her guilty plea on the grounds that

the plea was entered based on a misapprehension of fact or law, or if there is a

doubt of the guilt of the accused and the ends of justice would better be served

by submitting the case to a trial. Hughes,

; Spriggle,

. A defendant's misapprehension of the law is well

recognized as a reason for vacating a guilty plea. People v. Belcher,

(2002). " ' In the absence of substantial objective proof showing that a

defendant's mistaken impressions were reasonably justified, subjective

impressions alone are not sufficient grounds on which to vacate a guilty plea.' "

Spriggle,

(quoting People v. Artale,

(1993)). "The defendant bears the burden of proving that his or her

mistaken impression was objectively reasonable under the circumstances

existing at the time of the plea." (Emphasis in original.) Spriggle,

.

¶ 44 In the case at bar, the record simply does not bear out defendant's claim that

he was suffering from a misunderstanding. The record shows that, during the

plea proceeding and prior to the plea, defendant expressed the issue, quite

20 No. 1-14-0036

thoughtfully and articulately. He asked the court whether a guilty plea would

preclude him from pursuing the bond issue in the future, and the court replied

that it would not provide legal advice. Defendant then asked specifically: "By

me raising this motion here in your courtroom, that doesn't prevent me from

raising it in [case No. 11 CR 07414-01], does it?" Again, the trial court

repeated: "I'm not giving you any legal advice." Defendant, however, decided

to proceed without this knowledge in order to preserve the benefit of his bargain

with the State. The record simply does not bear out defendant's claim that he

was suffering from a misunderstanding, and thus we cannot find that the trial

court abused its discretion.

¶ 45 III. The Mittimus

¶ 46 On appeal, defendant asks us to correct the mittimus to reflect the 1,045 days

served ordered by the trial court. " 'Although a written order of the circuit court

is evidence of the judgment of the circuit court, the trial judge's oral

pronouncement is the judgment of the court.' " People v. Carlisle,

(quoting People v. Whalum,

). " ' "When the oral pronouncement of the court and the written order are in

conflict, the oral pronouncement controls." ' " People v. Carlisle,

(quoting Whalum,

(quoting

People v. Smith,

(1993))). Thus, we order the

21 No. 1-14-0036

mittimus corrected to reflect the oral pronouncement of the trial court of 1,045

days served.

¶ 47 On appeal, the State asks us to reduce the number of days served to 951 days

served. In effect, the State is appealing the sentencing order, which Illinois

Supreme Court Rules do not permit it to do. Last month, our supreme court

held in Castleberry: "Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(a) sets forth with

specificity those instances where the State may appeal in a criminal case. The

rule does not permit the State to appeal a sentencing order." Castleberry,

, ¶ 21 (discussing Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(a) (eff. July 1, 2006)). "[B]ecause

the rule does not authorize the appeal of sentencing orders, it follows that the

State could not have cross-appealed in the appellate court on this issue, 'since a

reviewing court acquires not greater jurisdiction on cross-appeal than it could

on appeal.' " Castleberry,

(quoting People v. Farmer,

(1995)).

¶ 48 In Castleberry, as in the case at bar, the State "did not file either an appeal or

a cross-appeal in the appellate court but 'simply responded to a claim raised by

defendant.' " Castleberry,

(quoting the State's brief in

Castleberry). In Castleberry, the State argued that "the appellate court could,

therefore, properly address its argument." Castleberry,

.

22 No. 1-14-0036

The supreme court responded: "This is incorrect." Castleberry,

. The court explained:

"As the appellee in the appellate court, the State could, without filing a

cross-appeal, raise any argument of record in support of the circuit court's

judgment. [Citations.] However, an appellee who does not cross-appeal

may not 'attack the decree with a view either to enlarging his own rights

thereunder or of lessening the rights of his adversary.' [Citation.]

The State's argument *** was not brought to sustain the judgment of

the circuit court. It was instead, a new and different issue brought with a

view to 'lessening the rights' of defendant. The State's argument was a de

facto cross-appeal *** and, as such, was impermissible." Castleberry,

.

¶ 49 As a result, the State lacked the authority to ask for a reduction in the credit

for days served which would have, in effect, appealed the trial court's

sentencing order. See also Castleberry,

("the authority

granted under Rule 615(b)" to the appellate courts to modify sentences "is

limited to 'reduc[ing] the punishment imposed by the trial court' " (quoting Ill.

23 No. 1-14-0036

S. Ct. R. 615(b)(4))).

¶ 50 CONCLUSION

¶ 51 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment and conviction. However,

we order the mittimus corrected to reflect the 1,045 days of credit ordered by

the trial court.

¶ 52 Affirmed; mittimus corrected.

24