Not Being Admonished of a Mandatory Parole Term When Entering a Plea Agreement
In People v. Whitfield, 217 Ill. 2d 177, 840 N.E.2d 658, 298 Ill. Dec. 545 (2005), the defendant had entered into a negotiated plea agreement for a specific sentence of 25 years' imprisonment. Whitfield, 217 Ill. 2d at 191, 840 N.E.2d at 667.
The court found that the imposition of the period of mandatory supervised release exceeded the specific sentence bargained for by the defendant. Whitfield, 217 Ill. 2d at 191, 840 N.E.2d at 667.
Whitfield analyzed the concept of benefit of the bargain through the precedent of McCoy. Whitfield, 217 Ill. 2d at 191, 840 N.E.2d at 667; McCoy, 74 Ill. 2d at 403, 385 N.E.2d at 699.
In McCoy, the defendant had not been not admonished of a mandatory parole term when entering his plea. As explained in Whitfield, McCoy found that the defendant was not prejudiced for the following reason:
" 'The quid pro quo for the plea of guilty was the prosecutor's recommendation that there be concurrent sentences of 1 to 3 years, and defendant knew that the court was not bound to accept the recommendation and could sentence defendant to a term of not less than 1 nor more than 20 years.'" Whitfield, 217 Ill. 2d at 191, 840 N.E.2d at 667.