People v. Galloway
This text of 2025 IL App (3d) 240158-U (People v. Galloway) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
NOTICE: This order was filed under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
2025 IL App (3d) 240158-U
Order filed February 27, 2025 ____________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
THIRD DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ILLINOIS, ) of the 12th Judicial Circuit, ) Will County, Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) Appeal No. 3-24-0158 v. ) Circuit No. 19-CF-2088 ) CHARLES E. GALLOWAY, ) Honorable ) Derek W. Ewanic, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding. ____________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE PETERSON delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Hettel and Anderson concurred in the judgment. ____________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
¶1 Held: (1) The court improperly dismissed defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea as untimely. (2) Defendant’s convictions for aggravated domestic battery and domestic battery violate the one-act, one-crime doctrine.
¶2 Defendant, Charles E. Galloway, appeals the denial of the motion to withdraw his guilty
plea arguing that the motion was timely filed and his convictions for aggravated domestic battery
and domestic battery violate the one-act, one-crime doctrine. We (1) vacate the Will County circuit court’s dismissal of the motion to withdraw defendant’s guilty plea, (2) vacate defendant’s
domestic battery conviction, and (3) remand for further proceedings.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 The State charged defendant with aggravated domestic battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3.3(a), (b)
(West 2018)), aggravated battery (id. § 12-3.05(a)(1)), and domestic battery (id. § 12-3.2(a)(1)).
On June 27, 2022, defendant entered an open plea to aggravated domestic battery and domestic
battery, and the State dismissed the aggravated battery charge. The aggravated domestic battery
charge alleged that defendant caused great bodily harm when he “struck Emosha Moore about the
head,” and the domestic battery charge alleged that defendant caused bodily harm when he “struck
*** Moore about the head.” On December 21, 2022, the court sentenced defendant to eight years’
imprisonment for aggravated domestic battery and entered a judgment of conviction for domestic
battery.
¶5 On January 19, 2023, private counsel filed a “Motion to Reconsider and/or Motion to
Reduce the Sentence” requesting the court reconsider several factors in mitigation warranting a
reduced sentence. Counsel did not file a Rule 604(d) certificate. On April 28, 2023, counsel
informed the court that he was in the process of “amending and doing the post sentencing motions”
following a timely filed motion. At that time, defendant stated his desire to discharge counsel as
his attorney. The court allowed counsel to withdraw, found defendant indigent, and appointed the
public defender.
¶6 On July 27 and August 15, 2023, defendant filed pro se motions to withdraw his guilty
plea. Postplea counsel indicated that they intended to amend the motions to maintain compliance
with Rule 604(d). The court granted the State’s motion to hold defendant’s motions to withdraw
his guilty plea in abeyance until counsel decided whether they were going to adopt defendant’s
2 claims. On November 16, 2023, postplea counsel filed an “Amended Motion to Reconsider
Sentence Withdraw Plea of Guilty and Vacate Judgment.” The motion adopted the claims asserted
in plea counsel’s motion to reconsider sentence and defendant’s motions to withdraw his guilty
plea. Postplea counsel also filed a Rule 604(d) certificate.
¶7 On January 16, 2024, the State filed a motion to dismiss defendant’s motion to withdraw
his guilty plea as untimely. At a hearing on the motion, the State argued that while defendant’s
motion to reconsider sentence was timely filed, defendant’s pro se motion to withdraw his guilty
plea raising separate issues of error was filed after the 30-day period. Postplea counsel continued
to assert that defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea was an amendment to plea counsel’s timely
filed motion to reconsider sentence. The court granted the State’s motion to dismiss defendant’s
motion to withdraw his guilty plea and proceeded to a hearing on defendant’s motion to reconsider
sentence. The court denied defendant’s motion to reconsider sentence. Defendant appealed.
¶8 II. ANALYSIS
¶9 On appeal, defendant argues that the court improperly dismissed the motion to withdraw
his guilty plea as untimely and his convictions for aggravated domestic battery and domestic
battery violate the one-act, one-crime doctrine.
¶ 10 A. Timeliness
¶ 11 Illinois Supreme Court Rule 605(c)(2) requires that defendant, “prior to taking an appeal
*** must file in the trial court, within 30 days of the date on which sentence is imposed, a written
motion asking to have the judgment vacated and for leave to withdraw the plea of guilty.” Ill. S.
Ct. R. 605(c)(2) (eff. Oct. 1, 2001). A timely motion directed against the judgment tolls the time
for appeal. People v. Kibbons, 2016 IL App (3d) 150090, ¶ 12. The timeliness of the postplea
3 motion is a jurisdictional question of law, which we review de novo. People v. Marker, 233 Ill. 2d
158, 162 (2009).
¶ 12 In the present case, defendant entered a guilty plea and filed a timely motion to reconsider
sentence. The motion to reconsider sentence remained pending all through the filing of defendant’s
pro se motions to withdraw his guilty plea and postplea counsel’s “Amended Motion to Reconsider
Sentence Withdraw Plea of Guilty and Vacate Judgment.” We find that defendant’s timely filed
and pending motion to reconsider his sentence tolled the 30-day period, allowing defendant time
to amend the motion directed against his judgment. See Kibbons, 2016 IL App (3d) 150090, ¶ 12.
Defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea and postplea counsel’s motion adopting the
motions to withdraw and the motion to reconsider sentence amounted to an amendment of the
original postplea motion. See People v. Cook, 2023 IL App (4th) 210621, ¶ 47. It was, thus, timely
filed. Therefore, we vacate the court’s dismissal of the motion to withdraw defendant’s guilty plea
and remand for further postplea proceedings.
¶ 13 B. One-Act, One-Crime Doctrine
¶ 14 Defendant argued that his convictions for aggravated domestic battery and domestic battery
violate the one-act, one-crime doctrine because his convictions arose from the same physical act.
The State confesses error and agrees that defendant’s conviction for domestic battery should be
vacated.
¶ 15 A criminal defendant may not be convicted of multiple offenses when those offenses are
based on precisely the same physical act. People v. Artis, 232 Ill. 2d 156, 161 (2009). When two
or more convictions are based on a single act, the sentence imposed for the less serious offense
should be vacated. Id. at 170. To determine which offense is more serious, courts generally
compare the relative punishments prescribed by legislature. Id.
4 ¶ 16 In the present case, defendant’s convictions for aggravated domestic battery and domestic
battery stem from the same physical act of striking Moore “about the head,” and are not sufficiently
distinct to support the imposition of two convictions.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2025 IL App (3d) 240158-U, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-galloway-illappct-2025.