No. 3--95--0294
_________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
THIRD DISTRICT
A.D., 1997
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
ILLINOIS, ) for the 10th Judicial Circuit
) Peoria County, Illinois
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
)
v. ) No. 94--CF--493
)
EMMITT SANDERS, ) Honorable
) Robert E. Manning
Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding
_________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE SLATER delivered the opinion of the court:
_________________________________________________________________
The defendant, Emmitt Sanders, pled guilty to a charge of
first degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9--1(a)(1) (West 1994)) in
exchange for a sentencing cap of 45 years. Following a sentenc-
ing hearing, the trial court imposed the maximum term of 45
years' imprisonment. The defendant's motion to withdraw his
guilty plea was denied. On appeal, the defendant contends that:
(1) he was entitled to a fitness hearing because he was taking
medication for asthma at the time of his guilty plea; and (2) his
sentence was excessive. We affirm.
At the guilty plea hearing, the trial judge questioned the
defendant about his understanding of the plea bargain agreement.
The defendant indicated that he understood that pursuant to the
agreement he could be sentenced to 45 years in prison. The judge
also asked the defendant if he was taking any medication. The
defendant answered that he had been prescribed an inhaler to use
for his asthma. According to the defendant, the inhaler allowed
him to breathe more easily but otherwise it did not "affect [him]
really."
The defendant argues first on appeal that because he was
taking medication for asthma, he was entitled to a hearing to
determine whether he was fit to enter a plea of guilty.
The Illinois Supreme Court recently determined that the Code
of Criminal Procedure of 1963 requires a fitness hearing only for
those defendants who are taking psychotropic medication or other
medication which would interfere with their ability to understand
the nature and purpose of the criminal proceedings or to assist
in their defense. People v. Britz, 174 Ill. 2d 163, 673 N.E.2d
300 (1996).
The defendant does not contend that the medication contained
in his asthma inhaler interfered with his ability to understand
the nature and purpose of the proceedings against him or to
assist in his defense. Moreover, it is clear from the record on
appeal that it did not. Therefore, we hold that the defendant
was not entitled to a fitness hearing prior to the acceptance of
his guilty plea and his sentencing.
Next, the defendant claims that his sentence was excessive.
Initially, we note that this argument, standing alone, cannot
withstand review. The Illinois Supreme Court recently ruled that
a defendant who pleads guilty in exchange for a specific sentence
must move to withdraw his guilty plea before challenging his
sentence as excessive. People v. Evans, 174 Ill. 2d 320, 673
N.E.2d 244 (1996). The same rule applies when the defendant
agrees to a sentencing cap. People v. Catron, No. 4--95--0753
(December 6, 1996). Thus, the defendant's argument that his
sentence is excessive, as it is framed in his brief on appeal, is
without merit.
However, after carefully reviewing the record, we find that
the defendant did file in the trial court a motion to withdraw
his guilty plea in which he claims that his sentence is exces-
sive. Therefore, we will address the merits of this issue.
A defendant has no absolute right to withdraw a plea of
guilty and bears the burden of proving that such a withdrawal is
necessary to correct a manifest injustice. Evans, 174 Ill. 2d
320, 673 N.E.2d 244. The trial court's denial of a motion to
withdraw guilty plea will not be disturbed absent an abuse of
discretion. People v. Davis, 145 Ill. 2d 240, 582 N.E.2d 714
(1991).
It is clear from the record that the defendant knew when he
entered his guilty plea that he could be sentenced to 45 years in
prison. By agreeing to plead guilty in exchange for that sen-
tencing cap, the defendant was in effect agreeing that a 45-year
sentence was not manifestly unjust. See People v. Catron, No. 4-
-95--0753, slip op. at 2 (December 6, 1996). Thus, the
defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea based on the
imposition of an excessive sentence was not well-taken. The
trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying it.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court
of Peoria County is affirmed.
Affirmed.
HOMER, J., concurs.
HOLDRIDGE, J., specially concurring