Defendant Charged with Home Invasion, Weapons Offenses Has Appeal Dismissed

In People v. Wiley, the defendant was charged with four counts of home invasion. According to the charges, the defendant entered the victim’s dwelling while armed with a firearm. The state made four allegations of what happened while the defendant was in the victim’s home. They claimed:

• The defendant threatened the use of imminent force upon a resident
• The defendant struck the owner in the face
• The defendant pointed the firearm at two of the victims
• The defendant personally discharged the firearm during the commission of the offense

The four home invasion counts were all considered Class-X felonies which have a sentencing range of 6 to 30 years. One of the counts carried a mandatory sentence enhancement of 15 years and the other three counts carried a mandatory sentence enhancement of 20 years. Later, the state filed an additional charge of unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon.

The state offered the defendant a plea deal and filed an additional charge of being an armed habitual criminal, a Class-X felony. The defendant decided to plead guilty to the new charge in exchange for having the other charges against him dropped. He agreed to a 15-year sentence to be followed by 3 years of mandatory supervised release.

The court admonished (informed) the defendant that if he pleaded guilty to this new charge, he would be giving up several important rights. These included the right to a public trial, the right to compel witnesses to testify, the right to present evidence, the right to confront and cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses, and the right to testify on his own behalf. The defendant indicated that he understood this and acknowledged that by pleading guilty, he was waiving these rights. He ultimately pleaded guilty to the charge of being an armed habitual criminal.

The appeal 

The defendant filed a pro se (he filed the petition without the aid of a lawyer) petition for post-conviction relief. He claimed that one of his prior convictions, which served as an offense that supported the charge of being an armed habitual criminal, was based on a statute that violated the federal constitution. He also claimed that his private counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance by telling him that two of the victims were set to testify against him when, in reality, one victim told police he could not see the perpetrator’s face while the other later recanted her story. He also claimed his counsel urged him to accept a plea that was “unconstitutional.”

The appeals court dismissed all but one of the defendant’s claims, that his counsel was ineffective for failing to inform the defendant that the witness testimony against him was unreliable. The defendant also submitted evidence that his counsel only met with him two times, failed to appear for court dates, and told the defendant the victim would testify. Nonetheless, the defendant’s petition was denied and his plea agreement was upheld.

Talk to a Decatur, IL Criminal Appeals Attorney Today 

Patel Law, PC helps those convicted of crimes in Illinois appeal their convictions and sentences. Call our Decatur, IL criminal defense attorneys today to schedule an appointment and learn more about how we can help.

Source:

ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/ca8a8db8-b489-406b-a835-3c4d857d9f1d/People%20v.%20Wiley,%202024%20IL%20App%20(5th)%20220718-U.pdf