Judicial review of plea agreements; People v Rydzewski; Effect of an ambiguity

Holding that the trial court erred by finding a possible ambiguity in defendant’s plea and ordering resentencing, the court reversed. He pled guilty to conspiracy to teach the use of a firearm for the purpose of a civil disorder and felony-firearm, in exchange for dismissal of other charges in this case and in other cases. The trial court sentenced him to 32 months to 4 years for the former, and a consecutive term of 2 years for the latter. He moved to correct an invalid sentence, arguing there were ambiguities in his plea and that he expected a minimum sentence of between 0 and 9 months. The trial court found there was a possible ambiguity in the plea, ordered his sentence “stricken,” and ordered resentencing. On appeal, the court agreed with the prosecution that there was no ambiguity in the plea. “There was no confusion that the trial court had conducted a Cobbs evaluation and pronounced a likely minimum sentence of 32 months, because that evaluation was recited in the written plea agreement and stated on the record. There was also no confusion that there was no agreement to impose a sentence of 32 months.” The prosecution expressly stated “there was no sentence agreement, and defendant acknowledged that the court was ‘likely to give him 32 months’ but expressed the desire to address the trial court in person at sentencing regarding the ultimate sentence.” At sentencing, he “received a full opportunity to address the trial court and argue in support of a lesser sentence, and the trial court ultimately did not exceed its Cobbs evaluation of 32 months.” The trial court told him “that although his ‘initial’ guidelines range was zero to nine months, [it] was expressly not guaranteeing a minimum sentence within that range. Defendant signified his understanding.” Defendant could not “possibly have entered his plea on the expectation that he would receive a minimum sentence between zero and nine months.” Even if there was any ambiguity as to his “understanding of his guidelines range, any such confusion would have been irrelevant.” The trial court warned him “that his minimum sentence might not fall within the range of zero to nine months, to which defense counsel did not object.” As such, there was “unambiguously no agreement, understanding, or reasonable expectation that defendant would receive a minimum sentence of between zero and nine months. [His] plea could not have been made on the basis of a misunderstanding of the ramifications of that plea.”