The Defendant - Anthony Williams

Summary:

The Defendant, Anthony Williams, was indicted on two counts of federal retail theft. The indictment alleged that the defendant knowingly took possession of watches with a retail value in excess of $150. Count one was charged as a Class 3 felony, and count II was Charged as a Class 4 felony. The defendant petitioned for election of treatment under section 40-05 of the Act (20 ILCS 301/40-5(West 2010)). The trial court ordered the defendant be evaluated for a determination of whether he is an addict or alcoholic and if he can be rehabilitated. The def. pleaded guilty to count I and the State nol-prossed count II. The court discussed with the def. that because of his prior criminal history he is eligible for extended term sentence, which the defendant acknowledge. The defendant was also notified of his eligibility of TASC probation. The defendant agreed to and said yes to all of the notifications that the Court was telling him.

During sentencing the State presented the defendants criminal history which included 10 prior felony convictions and prior unsuccessful attempt at TASC probation. The court noted that it weighed the evidence in aggravation and mitigation as well as the reports submitted with the PSI. It noted the defendant's history of aggravated battery, robbery, forgery and felony theft. It noted the defendant's failed attempts at the TASC probation and not utilizing the available treatments that were available. The court found that sentence of imprisonment was necessary for the protection of the public and sentenced him 6yrs and 6 months in prison. The defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea or reconsider his sentence, alleging that he didn't fully understand the courts admonishments or the concept of an open guilty plea and that it was excessive. No additional argument was presented and the motion was denied. The defendant appealed.

On the appeal that State argued that the defendants mistaken impression concerning TASC was unreasonable, the defendant argued that had he not known he was ineligible for TASC he would have plead not guilty. Both parties acknowledge that the purpose of the plea agreement was to enable the defendant to seek the at TASC while allowing the State to seek an extended-term service. The supreme court affirmed. The court noted that the incorrect admonishment alone should not provide grounds for vacating the plea. It denied the defendant had been prejudiced by the inadequate admonishment. It noted the lack of evidence showing that the defendant knew that he was ineligible for TASC, probation or conditional discharge. The court state that due to the defendant's misapprehension, he didn't attempt to try and get a lesser term, and forwent the opportunity to go to trial where he could have been acquitted.

WHY THIS CASE IS SIGNIFICANT-

The defendant, basically agreed to everything