Find Court Cases > Go Back to List > People v. Worden

People v. Worden

Case Date: 10/27/1998
Court: 2nd District Appellate
Docket No: 2-97-0553

People v. Worden

No. 2-97-0553 (2nd Dist. 10-27-98)



No. 2--97--0553

October 27, 1998

________________________________________________________________



IN THE



APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS



SECOND DISTRICT

________________________________________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE

OF ILLINOIS,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

MARTIN J. WORDEN,

Defendant-Appellant.

 Appeal from the Circuit Court of Stephenson County.



No. 95-CF-386

Honorable Charles R. Hartman, Judge, Presiding.

________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE RATHJE delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendant, Martin Worden, pleaded guilty to aggravated criminal sexual assault (720 ILCS 5/12--14(b)(1) (West 1994)). The trial court sentenced him to six years' imprisonment. Defendant appeals, contending that he should have the mittimus corrected to reflect that he is eligible for good-conduct credit without reference to the recently enacted truth-in-sentencing legislation. We affirm the judgment as modified.

Defendant agreed to plead guilty in exchange for a six-year sentence and the State's agreement to dismiss two misdemeanor charges. After delaying sentencing to examine the presentence materials, the trial court concurred in the agreement and sentenced defendant to six years in prison.

Defendant filed a pro se notice of appeal that included allegations amounting to grounds to withdraw his guilty plea. This court found that the trial court's admonishments pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 605(b) (145 Ill. 2d R. 605(b)) were insufficient and remanded the cause to the trial court to permit defendant to file a postplea motion. People v. Worden, No. 2--96--0607 (October 18, 1996) (unpublished order pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 23).

Defendant thereafter moved to withdraw his guilty plea, contending that he was mistakenly told that the "truth-in-sentencing" provisions requiring him to serve at least 85% of his sentence did not apply to him. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.

On appeal, defendant argues that he is not subject to the truth-in-sentencing provisions because this court has held the implementing legislation unconstitutional. In People v. Reedy, 295 Ill. App. 3d 34, 42 (1998), appeal allowed, 178 Ill. 2d 591 (1998), we held that Public Act 89--404, (Pub. Act 89--404, eff. August 20, 1995) containing the truth-in-sentencing provisions, was passed in violation of the single subject rule of the Illinois constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. IV,