NOTICE 2026 IL App (5th) 240639-U NOTICE Decision filed 03/06/26. The This order was filed under text of this decision may be NO. 5-24-0639 Supreme Court Rule 23 and is changed or corrected prior to not precedent except in the the filing of a Petition for IN THE limited circumstances allowed Rehearing or the disposition of under Rule 23(e)(1). the same. APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIFTH DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Macon County. ) v. ) No. 22-CF-1187 ) MANOLITO CONNER, ) Honorable ) Jeffrey S. Geisler, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE SHOLAR delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Barberis and McHaney concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: Defendant waived his argument that his medications made the entering of his guilty plea not knowing or voluntary.
¶2 Defendant, Manolito Conner, appeals from the Macon County trial court’s dismissal of his
postconviction petition at the first stage. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred
by dismissing his petition, where defendant contends that he sufficiently pled the gist of a
constitutional claim that his medications made the entering of his guilty plea not knowing or
voluntary. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 On or about September 14, 2022, the State charged defendant by information with two
counts of attempted first degree murder and one count of aggravated battery following defendant’s
1 stabbing of his former romantic partner. Following admonishments from the trial court, on
November 21, 2022, defendant entered an open plea of guilty to one count of attempted first degree
murder with dismissal of the remaining counts.
¶5 On January 23, 2023, the matter proceeded to sentencing. The court asked defense counsel
whether there were any corrections or additions to the presentence investigation report, and
defense counsel indicated that defendant was on medication for high blood pressure, an
antidepressant, and medication to “help him sleep.” At sentencing, the victim testified that
defendant suffered from mental health issues following the death of his child. The victim testified
that she forgave defendant, and she explained that he used to be a good man.
¶6 Next, Janice Bush, the mental health specialist for the Macon County jail, testified.
Defendant waived his right to privilege and confidentiality for the purpose of sentencing. While in
the jail, defendant was placed on a suicide watch and began working with Bush. Bush did not
coordinate defendant’s medications. Bush testified that when she first began working with
defendant, he did not “understand what was going on,” but after more sessions, defendant
“understood what was going on” and “seems to be more at ease and at peace with himself from
before.” Bush testified that defendant would benefit from ongoing mental health treatment.
¶7 Defendant made a statement of allocution wherein he expressed remorse for his actions
and his love for his children. In mitigation, defense counsel argued that defendant’s mental health
drastically declined following the death of his child and the breakdown of his relationship with the
victim.
¶8 As a factor in mitigation, the trial court expressly considered defendant’s “mental health
issues.” The court acknowledged that he “listened to the victim in this case, that he was a good
man going through some mental health issues, that she has forgiven him for this situation, basically
2 wants him to get treatment, that he does have children by her.” However, the court noted that this
was an “extremely serious situation.” The trial court sentenced defendant to 14 years in prison
with 3 years of mandatory supervised release for the offense of attempted first degree murder.
Defendant did not file a direct appeal.
¶9 On January 3, 2024, defendant filed a pro se postconviction petition. Relevant to this
appeal, defendant alleged that his guilty plea was not entered voluntarily because of the effects of
his medications.
¶ 10 On February 22, 2024, the trial court summarily dismissed defendant’s petition by written
order. The trial court’s order specifically noted that defendant did not file a motion to withdraw
guilty plea or a direct appeal. The court determined that defendant’s statements regarding his
mental health were “conclusory because they lack any specific diagnosis.” As to medications
defendant took, the trial court also noted that defendant’s petition and affidavit “fail to state what
medications he was taking and how those medications affected his ability to knowingly and
voluntarily enter the plea.” As such, the trial court determined that defendant’s petition failed to
state the gist of a constitutional claim and dismissed the petition as frivolous and patently without
merit.
¶ 11 On March 12, 2024, defendant filed a pro se motion to reconsider the trial court’s denial
of his postconviction petition. On March 13, 2024, the trial court denied the motion by docket
entry. The court directed the circuit clerk to prepare a notice of appeal for defendant.
¶ 12 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 13 On appeal, defendant contends that he sufficiently pled the gist of a constitutional claim
that his medications made the entering of his guilty plea not knowing or voluntary. The State
responds, noting that the trial court properly determined that defendant’s petition lacked specific
3 facts about his medications, how they impacted his mental health and decision making, or how it
rendered him unfit to plead guilty. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court’s summary
dismissal of defendant’s postconviction petition.
¶ 14 Under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act, there is “a three-stage process for an imprisoned
person to raise a constitutional challenge to a conviction or sentence.” People v. Hatter, 2021 IL
125981, ¶ 22 (citing 725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq. (West 2016)). “At the first stage, the circuit court
has 90 days to review a petition and may summarily dismiss it if the court finds it is frivolous and
patently without merit.” People v. Pendleton, 223 Ill. 2d 458, 472 (2006). A postconviction petition
is frivolous or patently without merit “only if the petition has no arguable basis either in law or in
fact.” People v. Hodges, 234 Ill. 2d 1, 11-12 (2009). “A petition which lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact is one which is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or a fanciful
factual allegation.” Id. at 16. “An example of an indisputably meritless legal theory is one which
is completely contradicted by the record.” Id. “Fanciful factual allegations include those which are
fantastic or delusional.” Id. at 17. A trial court’s first-stage dismissal of a postconviction petition
is subject to de novo review. People v. Swamynathan, 236 Ill. 2d 103, 113 (2010).
¶ 15 Our review of the record demonstrates that defendant never filed a motion to withdraw his
guilty plea, nor did he assert any claim before the trial court that he wished to withdraw his guilty
plea. The State did not raise this issue in its response to defendant’s claim. However, we may
affirm the trial court’s decision on any basis supported by the record.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOTICE 2026 IL App (5th) 240639-U NOTICE Decision filed 03/06/26. The This order was filed under text of this decision may be NO. 5-24-0639 Supreme Court Rule 23 and is changed or corrected prior to not precedent except in the the filing of a Petition for IN THE limited circumstances allowed Rehearing or the disposition of under Rule 23(e)(1). the same. APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIFTH DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Macon County. ) v. ) No. 22-CF-1187 ) MANOLITO CONNER, ) Honorable ) Jeffrey S. Geisler, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE SHOLAR delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Barberis and McHaney concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: Defendant waived his argument that his medications made the entering of his guilty plea not knowing or voluntary.
¶2 Defendant, Manolito Conner, appeals from the Macon County trial court’s dismissal of his
postconviction petition at the first stage. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred
by dismissing his petition, where defendant contends that he sufficiently pled the gist of a
constitutional claim that his medications made the entering of his guilty plea not knowing or
voluntary. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 On or about September 14, 2022, the State charged defendant by information with two
counts of attempted first degree murder and one count of aggravated battery following defendant’s
1 stabbing of his former romantic partner. Following admonishments from the trial court, on
November 21, 2022, defendant entered an open plea of guilty to one count of attempted first degree
murder with dismissal of the remaining counts.
¶5 On January 23, 2023, the matter proceeded to sentencing. The court asked defense counsel
whether there were any corrections or additions to the presentence investigation report, and
defense counsel indicated that defendant was on medication for high blood pressure, an
antidepressant, and medication to “help him sleep.” At sentencing, the victim testified that
defendant suffered from mental health issues following the death of his child. The victim testified
that she forgave defendant, and she explained that he used to be a good man.
¶6 Next, Janice Bush, the mental health specialist for the Macon County jail, testified.
Defendant waived his right to privilege and confidentiality for the purpose of sentencing. While in
the jail, defendant was placed on a suicide watch and began working with Bush. Bush did not
coordinate defendant’s medications. Bush testified that when she first began working with
defendant, he did not “understand what was going on,” but after more sessions, defendant
“understood what was going on” and “seems to be more at ease and at peace with himself from
before.” Bush testified that defendant would benefit from ongoing mental health treatment.
¶7 Defendant made a statement of allocution wherein he expressed remorse for his actions
and his love for his children. In mitigation, defense counsel argued that defendant’s mental health
drastically declined following the death of his child and the breakdown of his relationship with the
victim.
¶8 As a factor in mitigation, the trial court expressly considered defendant’s “mental health
issues.” The court acknowledged that he “listened to the victim in this case, that he was a good
man going through some mental health issues, that she has forgiven him for this situation, basically
2 wants him to get treatment, that he does have children by her.” However, the court noted that this
was an “extremely serious situation.” The trial court sentenced defendant to 14 years in prison
with 3 years of mandatory supervised release for the offense of attempted first degree murder.
Defendant did not file a direct appeal.
¶9 On January 3, 2024, defendant filed a pro se postconviction petition. Relevant to this
appeal, defendant alleged that his guilty plea was not entered voluntarily because of the effects of
his medications.
¶ 10 On February 22, 2024, the trial court summarily dismissed defendant’s petition by written
order. The trial court’s order specifically noted that defendant did not file a motion to withdraw
guilty plea or a direct appeal. The court determined that defendant’s statements regarding his
mental health were “conclusory because they lack any specific diagnosis.” As to medications
defendant took, the trial court also noted that defendant’s petition and affidavit “fail to state what
medications he was taking and how those medications affected his ability to knowingly and
voluntarily enter the plea.” As such, the trial court determined that defendant’s petition failed to
state the gist of a constitutional claim and dismissed the petition as frivolous and patently without
merit.
¶ 11 On March 12, 2024, defendant filed a pro se motion to reconsider the trial court’s denial
of his postconviction petition. On March 13, 2024, the trial court denied the motion by docket
entry. The court directed the circuit clerk to prepare a notice of appeal for defendant.
¶ 12 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 13 On appeal, defendant contends that he sufficiently pled the gist of a constitutional claim
that his medications made the entering of his guilty plea not knowing or voluntary. The State
responds, noting that the trial court properly determined that defendant’s petition lacked specific
3 facts about his medications, how they impacted his mental health and decision making, or how it
rendered him unfit to plead guilty. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court’s summary
dismissal of defendant’s postconviction petition.
¶ 14 Under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act, there is “a three-stage process for an imprisoned
person to raise a constitutional challenge to a conviction or sentence.” People v. Hatter, 2021 IL
125981, ¶ 22 (citing 725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq. (West 2016)). “At the first stage, the circuit court
has 90 days to review a petition and may summarily dismiss it if the court finds it is frivolous and
patently without merit.” People v. Pendleton, 223 Ill. 2d 458, 472 (2006). A postconviction petition
is frivolous or patently without merit “only if the petition has no arguable basis either in law or in
fact.” People v. Hodges, 234 Ill. 2d 1, 11-12 (2009). “A petition which lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact is one which is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or a fanciful
factual allegation.” Id. at 16. “An example of an indisputably meritless legal theory is one which
is completely contradicted by the record.” Id. “Fanciful factual allegations include those which are
fantastic or delusional.” Id. at 17. A trial court’s first-stage dismissal of a postconviction petition
is subject to de novo review. People v. Swamynathan, 236 Ill. 2d 103, 113 (2010).
¶ 15 Our review of the record demonstrates that defendant never filed a motion to withdraw his
guilty plea, nor did he assert any claim before the trial court that he wished to withdraw his guilty
plea. The State did not raise this issue in its response to defendant’s claim. However, we may
affirm the trial court’s decision on any basis supported by the record. See In re Marriage of
Morreale, 351 Ill. App. 3d 238, 241 (2004). By failing to challenge his guilty plea before the trial
court, defendant waived review of his claim in a collateral proceeding.
¶ 16 Pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) (eff. July 1, 2017), defendant was required
to file a timely motion to withdraw his plea in order to challenge any aspect of the plea or the
4 sentence. Any constitutional claims that arose before his plea were waived. See People v. Ratliff,
2024 IL 129356, ¶ 24; People v. Jones, 2021 IL 126432, ¶ 20; People v. Sophanavong, 2020 IL
124337, ¶ 33 (“Given that he waived all nonjurisdictional errors by pleading guilty, defendant
should not be rewarded after standing silent all these years.”).
¶ 17 Defendant’s act of pleading guilty forecloses any claim of error related to whether his plea
was made knowingly and voluntarily. Sophanavong, 2020 IL 124337, ¶ 33. “ ‘It is well established
that a voluntary guilty plea waives all non-jurisdictional errors or irregularities, including
constitutional ones.’ ” Id. (quoting People v. Townsell, 209 Ill. 2d 543, 545 (2004)); see also Jones,
2021 IL 126432, ¶ 20. “Plea agreements are contracts, and principles of waiver apply equally to
them.” Jones, 2021 IL 126432, ¶ 21 (citing People v. Absher, 242 Ill. 2d 77, 87 (2011)).
¶ 18 Recently, the Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Ratliff, 2024 IL 129356, ¶ 26, clarified
that any issue not raised in a posttrial motion is “waived” on appeal. When distinguishing the
difference between waiver and forfeiture, the supreme court reasoned that waiver “is never
inadvertent because it is an intentional relinquishment of a right.” Id. Because defendant failed to
raise an issue claiming that his medications made the entering of his guilty plea not knowing or
voluntary in a motion to reconsider or a motion to withdraw guilty plea, the trial court did not have
the opportunity to address and correct any errors. Thus, defendant’s omission of the claim in any
postplea motions waived consideration of it on review.
¶ 19 Having reviewed the record on appeal and the arguments raised by the parties, we conclude
that defendant waived his argument that his medications made the entering of his guilty plea not
knowing or voluntary. Defendant’s failure to file a motion to reconsider or a motion to withdraw
guilty plea precludes this court from addressing the claim on appeal. Therefore, defendant waived
5 any claim related to his medications when he pleaded guilty, and he again waived any such claim
when he failed to raise that issue in a postplea motion.
¶ 20 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 21 For the forgoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court of Macon County is affirmed.
¶ 22 Affirmed.