Background
Anton Ruth pleaded guilty in 2010 to aggravated criminal sexual assault and received nine years in prison. At the plea hearing, the circuit court incorrectly told him that his mandatory supervised release (MSR) term would be three years, although the governing statute required an indeterminate term of three years to natural life.
After completing his prison term, Ruth pursued several forms of postconviction relief. In 2018, after the court explained the correct MSR term and the consequences of withdrawing his plea, Ruth withdrew his postconviction petition. He later filed Rule 472 motions seeking to change the mittimus to reflect the originally stated three-year MSR term.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed the denial of Ruth’s Rule 472 motion. Rule 472 permits correction of clerical errors that create a discrepancy between the written record and the court’s actual judgment; it does not authorize correction of a judicial error that would produce an unauthorized sentence.
The court held that a determinate three-year MSR term could not lawfully be imposed for Ruth’s offense because the statute mandates an MSR term of three years to life. Neither the parties nor the trial court could agree to an unauthorized sentence, and neither the circuit court nor the appellate court could alter the mittimus to create one. Because Ruth’s request failed on the merits, the court did not decide waiver or res judicata.
Key Takeaways
- Rule 472 corrects clerical discrepancies, not mistaken judicial pronouncements that would result in an unlawful sentence.
- For aggravated criminal sexual assault, the applicable statute required MSR of three years to natural life.
- A defendant who was incorrectly advised about MSR cannot obtain specific enforcement of an MSR term the law does not authorize.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes a correctable paperwork error from an illegal sentencing term. A written mittimus need not conform to an oral sentencing statement when the oral statement conflicts with a mandatory statutory penalty.
The order is nonprecedential under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23, except in the limited circumstances allowed by Rule 23(e)(1).