{ "id": 894470, "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DANIEL J. WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Wright", "decision_date": "2003-04-04", "docket_number": "No. 2-02-0058", "first_page": "759", "last_page": "763", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "337 Ill. App. 3d 759" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "311 Ill. App. 3d 1042", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 415357 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1043" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/311/1042-01" ] }, { "cite": "51 Ill. App. 3d 886", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3384969 ], "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "888" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/51/0886-01" ] }, { "cite": "342 Ill. App. 3d 1100", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3472908 ], "weight": 6, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1102" }, { "page": "1103-04" }, { "page": "1104" }, { "page": "1104" }, { "page": "1103" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/342/1100-01" ] }, { "cite": "57 Ill. App. 2d 466", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2598155 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1965, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "467", "parenthetical": "per curiam" }, { "page": "468" }, { "page": "468" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/57/0466-01" ] }, { "cite": "117 Ill. App. 3d 257", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3482586 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "259-60" }, { "page": "259" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/117/0257-01" ] }, { "cite": "45 Ill. 2d 265", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2897517 ], "year": 1970, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "269" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/45/0265-01" ] }, { "cite": "219 Ill. App. 3d 520", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5797669 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "521-22" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/219/0520-01" ] }, { "cite": "326 Ill. App. 3d 940", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 1281474 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "942-43" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/326/0940-01" ] }, { "cite": "202 Ill. 2d 629", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "333 Ill. App. 3d 60", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 487164 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "64-66" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/333/0060-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 452, "char_count": 8536, "ocr_confidence": 0.733, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.5241646163233988e-07, "percentile": 0.6698284340129482 }, "sha256": "1c8059214d3be73dbff2d1c76d99d4827467c7ad37d77bac145cd016decbbb71", "simhash": "1:3bee436e870d2c95", "word_count": 1439 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:38:38.563173+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DANIEL J. WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE McLAREN\ndelivered, the opinion of the court:\nDefendant, Daniel J. Wright, was indicted for the offense of unlawful possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver (720 ILCS 570/401(c)(2) (West 2000)). After a mistrial occurred, defendant pleaded guilty to a negotiated plea. On August 8, 2001, he was sentenced to a term of five years\u2019 imprisonment that was to be served consecutively to a sentence of two years\u2019 imprisonment for another conviction. On October 9, 2001, he filed a motion to correct the mittimus, requesting additional days\u2019 credit against his sentence for time already served. An amended mittimus was filed that same day. Defendant\u2019s subsequent pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea and vacate the judgment was dismissed as untimely. Defendant timely appeals. We affirm.\nAs an initial matter, the State contends that this court lacks jurisdiction to hear defendant\u2019s appeal because defendant\u2019s motion to withdraw his guilty plea was not timely and, thus, his notice of appeal cannot be timely. We disagree that under those circumstances this court would be deprived of jurisdiction. A defendant waives his right to appeal a guilty plea under Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (188 Ill. 2d R. 604(d)) unless he or she files a timely motion to withdraw the guilty plea and a timely notice of appeal; however, we retain jurisdiction over the appeal. People v. Flowers, 333 Ill. App. 3d 60, 64-66 (2002), appeal allowed, 202 Ill. 2d 629 (2002). In any event, this court has jurisdiction to review a trial court\u2019s ruling on the timeliness of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea. See People v. Wade, 326 Ill. App. 3d 940, 942-43 (2001); accord People v. Aldridge, 219 Ill. App. 3d 520, 521-22 (1991).\nThe requirements for appealing from a judgment entered on a guilty plea are set forth in Rule 604(d). The rule states:\n\u201cNo appeal from a judgment entered upon a plea of guilty shall be taken unless the defendant, within 30 days of the date on which sentence is imposed, files in the trial court a motion to reconsider the sentence, if only the sentence is being challenged, or, if the plea is being challenged, a motion to withdraw the plea of guilty and vacate the judgment. No appeal shall be taken upon a negotiated plea of guilty challenging the sentence as excessive unless the defendant, within 30 days of the imposition of sentence, files a motion to withdraw the plea of guilty and vacate the judgment.\u201d 188 Ill. 2d R. 604(d).\nDefendant argues that the trial court erred by dismissing his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and vacate the judgment for untimeliness. Defendant contends that Ms motion was filed \u201cwithin 30 days of the occurrence of the event which caused him to file the motion: the amending of his mittimus.\u201d In other words, he argues that, when the amended mittimus was filed on October 9, 2001, that was the \u201cdate on which sentence was imposed\u201d pursuant to Rule 604(d), and, therefore, he filed his motion to withdraw his guilty plea within 30 days of the sentencing date. We do not agree.\nFor defendant\u2019s motion to have been timely filed under Rule 604(d), we would have to construe the court\u2019s issuance of an amended mittimus as the same as if it issued a new sentence. A trial court\u2019s act of correcting a mittimus, however, is a ministerial act and does not change the underlying sentence. See, e.g., People v. Evans, 45 Ill. 2d 265, 269 (1970); People v. Miles, 117 Ill. App. 3d 257, 259-60 (1983). The mittimus is a document directed to a sheriff, warden, the Department of Corrections, or other executive officer detailing a prisoner\u2019s sentence, which is often simply a copy of the judge\u2019s signed judgment or order. 735 ILCS 5/2 \u2014 1801(a) (West 2000). It is not a part of the common law record, and the trial court may amend the mittimus at any time. Miles, 117 Ill. App. 3d at 259. In other words, the mittimus informs the person or entity detaining a prisoner about the specifics of the prisoner\u2019s sentence so that the prisoner\u2019s release date can be readily determined.\nFor example, in People v. Troesch, 57 Ill. App. 2d 466, 467 (1965) (per curiam), the defendant found a discrepancy between the court\u2019s sentencing pronouncement and the mittimus. Because of this discrepancy, he argued that his sentence was invalid. Disagreeing, the court noted that \u201c[a] prisoner duly convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary is confined not by virtue of the mittimus, but on account of the judgment and sentence against him in the trial court.\u201d Troesch, 57 Ill. App. 2d at 468. The court corrected the mittimus to reflect the sentence it actually imposed, but that initial sentence was not changed, the Troesch court concluded. Troesch, 57 Ill. App. 2d at 468.\nIn People v. Langston, 342 Ill. App. 3d 1100 (2001), the court considered an argument very similar to defendant\u2019s. It examined whether an amended mittimus\u2019s filing date created a new \u201cdate of conviction\u201d for the purposes of the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (the Act) (725 ILCS 5/122 \u2014 1(c) (West 2000)). In that case, the trial court corrected the defendant\u2019s mittimus on remand to include good-conduct credit. Langston, 342 Ill. App. 3d at 1102. The defendant then contended that because his initial sentence was deemed invalid by the appellate court, his first valid sentence was imposed with the amended mittimus and, thus, that sentencing date must be considered the date of conviction for determining the time for filing a postconviction petition. The court disagreed, holding that \u201cwhile defendant is correct in asserting that the date of sentence is the trigger for the period of limitations, we are persuaded that the triggering event is the initial sentence, even though it was invalid.\u201d Langston, 342 Ill. App. 3d at 1103-04. The final judgment\u2019s sentence does not have to be correct in order to start the time period for filing any postconviction petitions. Langston, 342 Ill. App. 3d at 1104. Rather, \u201cin determining the time for filing a postconviction petition the 1 \u201cdate of conviction\u201d means the date that final judgment including sentence was entered\u2019 [Citation.],\u201d regardless of whether the sentence is erroneous. (Emphasis in original.) Langston, 342 Ill. App. 3d at 1104.\nWe hold that the reasoning in Langston also applies to the present circumstances. Even though section 122 \u2014 1(c) of the Act states that the \u201cdate of conviction\u201d triggers the limitations period for filing postconviction petitions and Rule 604(d) states that motions to withdraw guilty pleas must be filed within 30 days \u201cof the date on which sentence is imposed,\u201d both terms refer to the same event. The \u201cdate on which sentence is imposed\u201d under Rule 604(d) means the date the judgment and sentence were filed. People v. Franks, 51 Ill. App. 3d 886, 888 (1977). Likewise, as we previously discussed, under section 122 \u2014 1(c) of the Act, the \u201cdate of conviction\u201d refers to the entry date of the judgment and sentence. Langston, 342 Ill. App. 3d at 1103.\nAdditionally, it appears that defendant is implicitly characterizing his motion to correct the mittimus as a motion to reconsider the sentence, which would toll the 30-day limitations period for filing a motion to withdraw a guilty plea. 188 Ill. 2d R. 604(d). However, where, as here, the defendant pleaded guilty to a negotiated plea, the motion-to-reconsider-the-sentence provision of Rule 604(d) does not apply. People v. Wright, 311 Ill. App. 3d 1042, 1043 (2000). Nevertheless, defendant\u2019s contention is without avail since the motion to correct the mittimus was filed almost two months after the sentencing date.\nDefendant also argues that, in finding his motion untimely, the court erred by relying on the date the clerk\u2019s office received the motion rather than the verified date of mailing from the prison. We need not address this contention because, even if the motion was filed within 30 days of the issuance of the amended mittimus, that date was not within 30 days of the sentencing date as required by Rule 604(d).\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Lake County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nHUTCHINSON, EJ., and CALLUM, J, concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE McLAREN" } ], "attorneys": [ "G. Joseph Weller and Paul J. Glaser, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Elgin, for appellant.", "Michael J. Waller, State\u2019s Attorney, of Waukegan (Martin P. Moltz and Joan M. Kripke, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DANIEL J. WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant.\nSecond District\nNo. 2\u201402\u20140058\nOpinion filed April 4, 2003.\nG. Joseph Weller and Paul J. Glaser, both of State Appellate Defender\u2019s Office, of Elgin, for appellant.\nMichael J. Waller, State\u2019s Attorney, of Waukegan (Martin P. Moltz and Joan M. Kripke, both of State\u2019s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor\u2019s Office, of counsel), for the People." }, "file_name": "0759-01", "first_page_order": 777, "last_page_order": 781 }