Find Legal Information

Docket No. 93370-Agenda 24-September 2002.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS ex rel. JAMES E. 

RYAN, Petitioner, v. JOHN B. ROE et al., Respondents.

Opinion filed October 3, 2002.

JUSTICE FITZGERALD delivered the opinion of the court:

On July 30, 1998, the defendant, Jeremiah Pasewaldt, wasarrested and charged with predatory criminal sexual assault of achild (see 720 ILCS 5/12-14.1(a)(1) (West 2000)) after heattacked an 11-year-old girl in his garage. On June 8, 1999, thedefendant appeared in court to enter a guilty plea and receive arecommended eight-year sentence pursuant to an agreement withthe State.

The State offered, and the defendant acknowledged, a factualbasis for his guilty plea. In admonishing the defendant, the trialjudge told the defendant that the sentencing range for his offense,a Class X felony, was 6 to 30 years. See 177 Ill. 2d R. 402(a)(2);730 ILCS 5/5-8-1(a)(3) (West 2000). The trial judge then askedthe State and the defense whether the truth-in-sentencingprovisions of the Unified Code of Corrections (see 730 ILCS5/3-6-3(a)(2) (West 2000)) applied. The assistant State's Attorneydid not believe that truth-in-sentencing applied to a 1998 offense.The judge stated that, though the provisions were in effect, "thequestion is whether the offense is covered." The defendant'sattorney was uncertain, offering, "I need to check that." The judgecontinued the defendant's sentencing hearing to research thisissue. On June 21, 1999, the parties again appeared in court. Thetrial judge addressed the defendant:

"I have determined that truth in sentencing does notapply to this case, so you'll be entitled to your normalgood time credits, et cetera. I also have considered the factthat both the [assistant] State's Attorney and your lawyertold me that they didn't contemplate that it applies. Thatmeans at the time that they entered into this agreementrelative to this sentence, they *** didn't consider the factthat truth in sentencing might apply. And I have writtenon your sentencing order that it doesn't apply."

At the bottom of the sentencing order, the trial judge noted, "NOTSUBJECT TO TRUTH IN SENTENCING." The judge sentencedthe defendant to eight years' imprisonment and payment of costs.

On March 1, 2002, nearly three years later, the State filed amotion for leave to file a mandamus complaint (see 188 Ill. 2d R.381; Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI,