People v. Maxwell

2026 IL App (1st) 242331-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: March 6, 2026
• Docket: 1-24-2331
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

2026 IL App (1st) 242331-U SIXTH DIVISION

March 6, 2026

No. 1-24-2331

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). ______________________________________________________________________________

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of Cook County. Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) v. ) No. 11CR2515 ) ) Honorable TYRONE MAXWELL, ) Charles P. Burns, ) Judge, presiding. Defendant-Appellant. )

PRESIDING JUSTICE C.A. WALKER delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Pucinski and Gamrath concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

Held: The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea where the factual basis established six separate acts of sexual penetration. Defendant also failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of post plea counsel. We remand to allow post plea counsel the opportunity to comply with Rule 604(d). No. 1-24-2331

¶1 In 2011, Tyrone Maxwell was charged by indictment on multiple counts for aggravated

criminal sexual assault, aggravated robbery, aggravated kidnapping, criminal sexual assault, and

aggravated battery. On July 29, 2013, Maxwell pleaded guilty to six counts of aggravated criminal

sexual assault and was sentenced to 40 years’ imprisonment.

¶2 On August 27, 2013, Maxwell filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, alleging his IQ of

70 and first grade reading level prevented him from understanding the Rule 402 admonishments.

The circuit court denied the motion, and he filed a timely notice of appeal. Due to an administrative

error, Maxwell’s appeal was not docketed. More than 10 years later, he filed a pro se motion in

the Illinois Supreme Court seeking a supervisory order directing the clerk of the circuit court to

properly file his notice of appeal or, alternatively, to vacate his conviction and sentence. On

December 26, 2024, the Illinois Supreme Court granted Maxwell’s motion and directed this Court

to allow him to amend his notice of appeal.

¶3 On appeal, Maxwell argues his guilty plea for aggravated criminal sexual assault pursuant

to count 15 of the indictment, should be reversed because the circuit court accepted the plea

without a factual basis to support his conviction. Additionally, he asks this court to remand his

case for new post-plea proceedings where counsel failed to comply with Illinois Supreme Court

Rule 604(d). For the following reasons, we affirm in part and remand with directions for the court

to allow post-plea counsel the opportunity to comply with Rule 604(d).

¶4 I. BACKGROUND

¶5 In 2011, defendant Tyrone Maxwell was charged by indictment with multiple counts of

aggravated criminal sexual assault, aggravated robbery, aggravated kidnapping, criminal sexual

assault, and aggravated battery. Prior to trial, the circuit court found Maxwell fit to stand trial on

January 3, 2013. The court later conducted an Illinois Supreme Court Rule 402 conference. During

2 No. 1-24-2331

the Rule 402 conference, the State proffered Maxwell committed six separate acts of sexual

penetration against the victim: (1) he pulled down the victim’s pants and penetrated her vagina

with his penis; (2) he forced his penis into the victim’s mouth; (3) he again penetrated the victim’s

vagina with his penis; (4) he penetrated the victim’s anus with his penis; (5) he used his mouth to

lick the victim’s vagina; and (6) he forced his penis into the victim’s mouth before ejaculating. In

exchange for Maxwell’s pleas of guilty to six counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault, the

State offered a sentence of 40 years’ imprisonment. The court characterized the offer as “more

than reasonable” and proceeded to a plea hearing.

¶6 At the plea hearing, the court advised Maxwell of the six counts of aggravated criminal

sexual assault, including two counts alleging separate acts of penis-to-anus contact. Maxwell stated

he understood the charges and pleaded guilty. The court admonished him regarding the rights he

was waiving, including his right to testify and the State’s burden to prove the charges beyond a

reasonable doubt, and Maxwell again indicated his understanding. The court determined

Maxwell’s pleas were voluntary and he understood the charges and potential penalties. The parties

relied on the Rule 402 conference for sentencing, and the court sentenced him to 40 years’

imprisonment.

¶7 On September 25, 2014, Maxwell moved to withdraw his guilty plea, alleging he did not

understand the consequences of his plea, his arrest was unconstitutional, and trial counsel was

ineffective. Appointed counsel filed a Rule 604(d) certificate stating he consulted with Maxwell

to “ascertain his contentions of error in the entry of his guilty plea,” and “deemed it unnecessary

to amend the petition.” At a hearing on the motion, counsel argued Maxwell’s plea was not

knowing and voluntary because Maxwell did not understand the proceedings and asserted Maxwell

had an IQ below 70. The court noted that counsel’s claim was not raised in the Rule 604(d)

3 No. 1-24-2331

certificate, ordered a retrospective fitness examination, and continued the matter pending the

results.

¶8 On August 26, 2014, Forensic Clinical Services submitted a report from Dr. Nadkarni

addressing Maxwell’s retrospective fitness to plead guilty. The court noted that Dr. Nadkarni

opined Maxwell was not exhibiting any significant psychiatric or cognitive impairment that would

have precluded him from entering a guilty plea and concluded, to a reasonable degree of medical

and psychiatric certainty, that Maxwell was fit to plead guilty at that time.

¶9 Counsel subsequently filed a second Rule 604(d) certificate stating that, after consulting

with Maxwell to “ascertain his contentions of error in the entry of his guilty plea,” he “reexamined

the pro se petition and deemed it necessary to amend.” Counsel filed a supplemental motion to

vacate the guilty plea, alleging Maxwell had an IQ below 70, read at a first grade level, and lacked

the mental capacity to understand the Rule 402 admonishments, rendering his plea unknowing and

involuntary. Counsel attached no affidavits or other supporting documentation.

¶ 10 The circuit court denied the motion and Maxwell stated his intention to appeal. The court

advised that a notice of appeal would be filed and the Office of the State Appellate Defender

(OSAD) would be appointed. More than five years passed without action on the appeal. Maxwell

inquired with the Cook County Public Defender’s office and was informed he was “way past any

appeal process.” On August 25, 2020, Maxwell received another letter advising him that OSAD

had been appointed to represent him in 2014 but provided no further information. On August 20,

2024, Maxwell filed a motion for supervisory order, explaining that, although he was advised at

the hearing that OSAD had been appointed and his appeal initiated, no appointment had occurred

and the appeal had not been properly filed. Following that motion, the circuit court clerk

4 No. 1-24-2331

transmitted Maxwell’s timely notice of appeal, and OSAD was appointed in November 2024, more

than ten years after the notice was filed. This appeal followed.

¶ 11 II. JURISDICTION

¶ 12 The circuit court denied Maxwell’s motion to vacate his guilty plea on September 25, 2014.

Notice of appeal was timely filed on September 25, 2014. An amended notice of appeal was

allowed January 2, 2025. Accordingly, this court has jurisdiction pursuant to Article VI, Section 6

of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI § 6) and Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d)

(eff. Apr. 15, 2024).

¶ 13 III. ANALYSIS

¶ 14 On appeal, Maxwell contends the State’s factual basis did not support his plea of guilty,

where counts 14 and 15 of the indictment alleged he committed aggravated criminal sexual assault

based on two separate instances of contact between his penis and the victim’s anus while the State’s

factual basis only described a single instance of penis to anus contact. Specifically, Maxwell argues

the circuit court entered a judgment of guilt without any basis in the record from which it could

conclude he committed the acts required to constitute the offense. He asks this court to review this

error under ineffective assistance of post-plea counsel and reverse his conviction and remand the

matter for a new plea hearing.

¶ 15 The State counters that Maxwell’s claim is waived where he pleaded guilty and failed to

raise the claim in a post-plea motion. Specifically, that Maxwell did not object to the factual basis

of his guilty plea at the plea hearing nor did he raise a claim regarding the sufficiency of the factual

basis in his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Even assuming counsel was deficient in its

performance for failing to include this issue, no error occurred because the factual basis detailed

six separate and distinct acts of sexual penetration.

5 No. 1-24-2331

¶ 16 We review the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea for an abuse of discretion. People

v. Dougherty, 394 Ill. App. 3d 134, 140 (2009). “An abuse of discretion will be found only where

the court’s ruling is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable or where no reasonable person would take

the view adopted by the court.” People v. Donoho, 204 Ill. 2d 159, 182 (2003).

¶ 17 Illinois Supreme Court Rule 402(c) mandates a court “shall not enter final judgment on a

plea of guilty without first determining that there is a factual basis for the plea.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 402(c)

(eff. July 1, 2012). The factual basis for a guilty plea consists of express admissions by the accused,

they committed the acts alleged in the charging instrument or a recital of evidence to the court that

supports the allegations in the charging instrument. People v. Vinson, 287 Ill. App. 3d 819, 821

(5th Dist. 1997). For a court to accept a guilty plea, a factual basis is required, but it need not prove

every element beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Bassette, 391 Ill. App. 3d 453, 457 (4th Dist.

2009). To comply with Rule 402(c), there must be a sufficient basis in the record which the court

could conclude that defendant committed the acts required to constitute the offense to which he is

pleading guilty. Id. at 457. Where there is no factual basis to support a plea of guilty, the remedy

is for the appellate court to reverse the conviction and remand with directions that defendant be

allowed to withdraw his plea. Vinson, 287 Ill. App. 3d 819, 821-22 (1997).

¶ 18 Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) states, in relevant part, “upon appeal any issue not raised

by the defendant in the motion to reconsider the sentence or withdraw the plea of guilty and vacate

the judgment shall be deemed waived.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(d) (eff. April 15, 2024). Here, in

Maxwell’s motion to withdraw guilty plea, he claimed he did not understand the ramifications of

the guilty plea, his arrest was unconstitutional, and he received ineffective assistance of plea

counsel. In his amended motion to withdraw his guilty plea, he claimed the guilty plea was not

made knowingly and voluntarily based on his mental capacity to understand the Rule 402

6 No. 1-24-2331

admonishments. Maxwell never raised a claim regarding the sufficiency of the factual basis in his

motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Accordingly, because he did not raise the sufficiency of the

factual basis in his motion to withdraw the plea, the claim is waived on appeal. People v. Ratliff,

2024 IL 129356, ¶¶ 26, 28. Even if we were to overlook waiver and consider the merits, Maxwell’s

claim fails.

¶ 19 Maxwell further contends he was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel during

post plea proceedings where post plea counsel failed to include the claim regarding the sufficiency

of the factual basis in his motion to withdraw guilty plea. In response, the State argues post plea

counsel was not ineffective because no error or prejudice occurred where the factual basis detailed

¶ 20 A criminal defendant has a constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel at all

critical stages of criminal proceedings, including when a defendant files a motion to withdraw a

guilty plea. U.S. Const., amends. VI, XIV; Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 8; People v. Hughes, 2012 IL

112817, ¶ 44. To establish ineffective assistance of counsel in the plea process, a defendant must

show counsel’s performance was deficient and the deficient performance resulted in prejudice.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984); See also Hughes, 2012 IL 112817, ¶ 44.

Specifically, a defendant must prove counsel’s performance was objectively unreasonable under

professional norms and there is a “reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional

errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id.

¶ 21 Here, the issue before us concerns Maxwell’s contention that the State failed to establish he

committed a second act of sexual penetration to the victim’s anus as described in count 15 of the

indictment. A defendant commits aggravated criminal sexual assault when the defendant commits

criminal sexual assault and causes bodily harm to the victim. 720 ILCS 5/11-1.30(a)(2) (2010). A

7 No. 1-24-2331

defendant commits criminal sexual assault if the defendant commits an act of sexual penetration

and uses force or threat of force. 720 ILCS 5/11-1.20(a)(1) (2010). “Sexual penetration” is defined

as:

any contact, however slight, between the sex organ or anus of one person and an object or the sex organ, mouth, or anus of another person or any intrusion, however slight, of any part of the body of one person or of any animal or object into the sex organ or anus of another person, including but not limited to, cunnilingus, fellatio, or anal penetration. Evidence of emission of semen is not required to prove sexual penetration. 720 ILCS 5/11-0.1 (2010).

¶ 22 A review of the record supports the contention the factual basis presented at Maxwell’s Rule

402 conference and guilty plea hearing was sufficient to prove six convictions for aggravated

criminal sexual assault. Maxwell does not contend he was misled by the language of the indictment

in entering his plea, rather he argues the factual basis failed to establish the specific act of sexual

penetration alleged within the indictment. We disagree and find the circuit court did not abuse its

discretion in finding the factual basis sufficient, as the specific manner of penetration alleged in

the indictment is not an element of aggravated criminal sexual assault. People v. Carter, 244 Ill.

App. 3d 792, 803-04 (1st Dist. 1993) (“Illinois case law provides that the type of sexual penetration

is not an element of the offense, and its inclusion in the indictment is merely surplusage.”) See

also People v. Burdine, 362 Ill. App. 3d 19, 24 (1st Dist. 2005) (no variance where the proof at

trial showed defendant committed aggravated battery when he “bit” the victim but the indictment

specified that defendant “struck” the victim.) Accordingly, any variance between the indictment’s

description and the factual basis is not fatal where the State’s proffer established six distinct acts

of sexual penetration, which were sufficient to support the six convictions entered upon Maxwell’s

plea. Because the record demonstrates the circuit court had a sufficient factual basis to accept his

plea, Maxwell cannot establish prejudice. Id.

8 No. 1-24-2331

¶ 23 Finally, Maxwell contends that post plea counsel failed to either facially or actually comply

with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d) and the State concedes this issue. Accordingly, remand

is necessary to allow post plea counsel the opportunity to comply with Rule 604(d). People v.

Evans, 2017 IL App (3d) 160019, ¶ 20.

¶ 24 IV. CONCLUSION

¶ 25 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County in

part and remand the cause for strict compliance with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 604(d).

¶ 26 Affirmed in part and remanded with directions.