![adam morrall the monster within adam morrall the monster within](https://dirtbikemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/ACthumby-2.jpg)
Here, defendant is challenging the sentence imposed upon the revocation of his probation, not the underlying judgment of conviction entered upon the guilty plea. ("hen the steps set forth in Rules 604 and 606 were not taken and the defendant seeks relief from his conviction only after probation is revoked, the appellate court is without jurisdiction to review the underlying judgment unless that judgment is void.") We disagree. 3d 910, 915, 743 N.E.2d 1084, 1087 (2001), the State contends we lack jurisdiction to address defendant's argument. ¶ 11 Citing to the Third District's decision in People v. Defendant requests we vacate the 13-year sentence and remand for resentencing to a term of imprisonment not greater than 10 years. Sentencing cap would not preclude the court from imposing a longer sentence if he was initially sentenced to probation and subsequently resentenced upon a revocation of that probation.
#Adam morrall the monster within trial
¶ 10 Defendant argues the trial court erred in resentencing him to 13 years' imprisonment because the court did not admonish him before accepting his plea that the 10-year The trial court denied defendant's motion. ¶ 7 Defendant filed a motion to reconsider the sentence, arguing it was excessive in light of the aggravating and mitigating factors. The trial court subsequently found that defendant had violated the terms of his probation and resentenced him to 13 years' imprisonment. Defendant told the court he understood the possible penalties. On November 12, 2015, the trial court informed defendant that if the State proved the petition, he could be resentenced on the original aggravated robbery offense to a period of incarceration from 4 to 15 years.
![adam morrall the monster within adam morrall the monster within](https://cdn.fanbyte.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/AEW03206-scaled.jpg)
¶ 6 On February 6, 2014, the State filed a petition to revoke defendant's probation. The trial court later sentenced him to 36 months' probation. Before accepting the plea, the trial court admonished defendant that aggravated robbery carried "a maximum penalty of four to 15 years in prison." Defendant informed the court that he understood the possible range of penalties. ¶ 5 On July 1, 2013, defendant pleaded guilty to count II in exchange for dismissal of count I and a 10-year sentencing cap. ¶ 4 In March 2013, the State charged defendant by information with armed robbery (count I) ( 720 ILCS 5/18-2(a) (West 2012)) and aggravated robbery (count II) ( 720 ILCS 5/18-1(b) (West 2012)). Sentenced to probation and subsequently resentenced upon a revocation of that probation. Defendant appeals, arguing the trial court erred in resentencing him to 13 years' imprisonment because the court did not admonish him before accepting his plea that the 10-year sentencing cap would not preclude the court from imposing a longer sentence if he was The court later revoked defendant's probation and resentenced him to 13 years' imprisonment. ¶ 2 Defendant, Adam Morrall, pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery ( 720 ILCS 5/18-1(b) (West 2012)) in exchange for a 10-year sentencing cap, and the trial court sentenced him to 36 months' probation. ¶ 1 Held: Trial court did not err in imposing a sentence upon revocation of probation greater than the sentencing cap from the original plea agreement where the sentence was within the statutory range and the court admonished defendant of the maximum possible sentence before accepting his plea. Presiding Justice Holder White and Justice Cavanagh concurred in the judgment. This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).Īppeal from the Circuit Court of Adams County JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the judgment of the court.